Thesis: Eugenics has long created unethical and immoral social policies, but while scientific knowledge debunks eugenics’ earlier claims, biotechnology is still carrying on its philosophies in a harmful way.

II. Background Information

The term “eugenics” is etymologically derived from the Greek words “eu” and “gen”, meaning of good birth, and was first used by Francis Galton in 1883 (Paul, 1995). The term has since been used to encompass any action or policy enacted to improve the human gene pool. Historically, this has meant forced sterilizations, prenatal screening, infanticide, marriage laws, and even genocide (Kevles, 1985). The term is largely associated with social movements that occurred throughout the early 20th century, and is often thought of in context with Nazi-era Germany and ‘scientific racism’. Eugenics seeks to promote positive phenotypes and discourage negative phenotypes with respect to race and class. The methods by which these ideals have been carried out are usually less than humane, and history has witnessed many deaths and tragedies due to the drive for perfection. Before an examination of how eugenics is being propagated through developing technology, an exploration of its beginnings must be conducted.

The history of eugenics has a scope that moves far beyond word-meaning. Rather, the very idea of manipulating or improving the human gene pool must have been practiced even before written language. It is likely that “the first eugenist was not the Spartan legislator, but the primitive savage who killed his sickly child” (Blackwell, 1913). Thought of this way, eugenics can be seen to be a broad concept that incorporates many aspects of human behavior throughout the sweep of history. In the days of the Greek and Roman empires, when war was always an imminent event, it seemed necessary to weed out the weak for the better of society. The age of Greek philosophers produced great thinkers such as Plato and Socrates. In his Republic, Plato articulated what he believed to be the best form of society: his republic. Long before the birth of modern genetics, he outlined his opinion on what would conserve the strong and eliminate the weak. He said that “they [men and women who were Guardians of society] will be bred deliberately to produce the best offspring, as though the Guardians were a pack of hunting dogs” (Plato, 360 B.C.). Plato believed that these practices would encourage the propagation of those he said were fit to be a part of his state. These ideas were held by many men who were high in the council at the time. Sparta, a prominent Greek city, practiced selective infanticide. They would leave their babies outside of the city walls shortly after birth. The babies who survived after a few days were salvaged and considered to be worthy or strong (Amos, 1982).

III. Eugenics – A Historical Perspective

The Greeks influenced the practices and ideals of their time, but millennia would pass before the invention of the printing press and scientific revolution. From the scientific revolution came the scientific method. In the 1860s and 1870s, Sir Francis Galton became a prominent thinker and promoter of the concept of eugenics; he is attributed to be the man who founded modern eugenics (Tredoux, 2001). Both a biologist and a statistician by training, his main argument centered on his interpretation of Darwin’s view as set forth by The Origin of Species. Galton believed that humans, by protecting the weak and the poor, were acting against Darwin’s principles of survival of the fittest, causing a "regression towards the mean" (Mackenzie, 1981). He argues that, to encourage these natural laws and improve human evolution, the poor should not be protected. He points out that animals are bred for purity, and says that it should not be any different for humans (Wikipedia:Eugenics, 2006). By studying how traits such as genius and talent run in families, he published his findings, promoting the “selective breeding” of these traits in humans (Galton, 1869). Galton hoped that his ideas would be adopted by the public in the form of social principles. He elaborated on his idea of eugenics in a 1904 paper, when he declared eugenics as "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage” (Galton, 1904). Much like Plato’s outlined beliefs in his Republic, Galton was a strong advocate of “positive” and “negative” eugenic control. This means encouraging the breeding of ‘fit’ genes, and discouraging the breeding of ‘unfit’ genes. This belief would carry very strong reverberations into the 20th century, and ultimately into World War II.

Within 40 years of Galton’s publications on eugenics, the forces of history were adopting his views, and the views of Plato, in new and radical ways. After devastation in World War I and the great losses that Germany suffered in the Treaty of Versailles, Adolf Hitler rallied the country together in a great surge of morale in the 1930s (BBCOnline, 1998). Once World War II began in 1939, Hitler’s policy of “Ethnic Cleansing” or “Racial Hygiene” took place as he engineered his vision of the Third Reich with the aim to create the Aryan race. Millions of those considered ‘unfit’ by the standards of the German race were shipped off to concentration camps for extermination: Jews and many other minority groups. A top SS doctor at Auschwitz, Joseph Mengele, performed brutal “scientific” experiments on live subjects in order to test his genetic theories (Posner and Ware, 1986). The Nazi party forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people believed to be ‘unfit’ during the 1930s and 1940s; 400,000 between 1934 and 1937 alone (Yad, 2005).

IV. World War II and Post World War II Eugenics

The Nazis performed many more tasks in their racial hygiene plan. They systematically killed tens of thousands of institutionalized and disabled people in an attempt to wipe out the weak. Women who were considered to be ‘fit’ and Aryan were given rewards for having babies (Wikipedia:Eugenics, 2006). The killing of millions of minorities in the Holocaust employed methods of death invented specifically for Hitler’s final solution, and permanently drew an association between eugenics and the Third Reich (Weindling, 1989). The actions of the German Nazi party during World War II showed how harmful science, or “pseudo-science” could be when practiced by the wrong people. Though one could argue that natural law guides evolution towards the propagation of the fit, intelligent, and healthy, it is the development of morals, ethics, and empathic understanding that is true evolution in human thought. Many millions of innocent people wrongfully died in the hands of those who thought they were cleansing the human race. Unfortunately, this tragedy was far more than just a Nazi movement; as science grew world-wide, practices of this dark form of eugenics took place in other places as well.

At the turn of the 20th century, the United States was beginning to adopt eugenics policies as well. Beginning in 1896 in Connecticut and then spreading to other states, marriage laws passed legislation that prevented the marrying of the “feeble-minded”, those considered imbeciles, and imbeciles (Kevles, 1985). Following this, the idea that traits such as mental-illness, schizophrenia, and imbecility could run in families became very popular among researchers, just as Galton had proposed decades earlier. The Supreme Court passed laws in 1927 that not only prohibited marriages of unfit people, but forced the sterilization of the mentally ill to prevent that “trait” from being passed to future generations (Lombardo, 2006). Over 45,000 mentally ill individuals had been forcibly sterilized in the United States by the end of World War II (Kevles, 1985). As it can be seen, the principles of eugenics laid out by early proponents were once again being manifested in harmful ways. In California, where the most sterilization was taking place, biologist Paul Popenoe published the results in a book. This book was extensively used by the Nazi government, and they even cited it as a major source during the post World War II Nuremberg trials (Black, 2003). Most non-Catholic nations other than the United States and Germany practiced social policies of eugenics during the first half of the 20th century. Tens of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized and prohibited to marry. By the end of the 1930s, due to Nazi stigma, eugenics had lost much of its political backing (Wikipedia:Eugenics, 2006). Though many eugenics policies remained effective even until the 1970s, advancing science and improved ethical consideration managed to oust eugenics from the scientific community.

V. Modern Eugenics

Since Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA, science has progressed in leaps and bounds since the 1950s. By the 1990s, eugenics was simply an obsolete word in the scientific community, and textbooks taught solid sciences instead of Nazi pseudo-science and its unethical ideas. Science improved at an exponential rate as computers aided research efforts and medical technology revolutionized healthcare (Mazumdar, 1997). With all of the new technologies available today, the backwards science of eugenics, popular 100 years ago, seems to be filed away in history. But, as little as the public would like to admit it, the ideas remain just as strong as before. The practices endorsed by Plato, Galton, and Hitler are certainly considered immoral and unethical in today’s world. However, the implicit ideals that underlie humanity’s strive to achieve no doubt echo the same ideas that Plato once advocated. The same mother who would recoil in disgust at the Nazi party’s ethnic cleansing during World War II might be paying thousands of dollars to have medical professionals ensure that her baby is devoid of any birth defects. The Indian man who would shake his head at Galton’s call against the mediocre might at the same time be unconsciously seeking a fair-skinned boy to adopt. The basic principles are still at the heart of humanity; to achieve the best and weed out the worst. With new genetic engineering technologies becoming rapidly available to the public, eugenics has returned in force, only this time in disguise. An examination of today’s bioethics is important in understanding how the potentially immoral practices of the past may be returning.

Since the turn of the 21st century, the world has been wrestling with the use of new genetic technologies, while some nations race to be the first to clone a human being. Much attention has been focused on the country of China, where maternity and infant health laws have been criticized as being eugenic (Renzong, 1999). The Chinese people, under considerable pressure from living in a crowded and rapidly-growing nation, enacted a one-child policy in 1978. Because of this, there is pressure to have male offspring (to carry on the family name) and to keep birth defects at a minimum. There may be truth to the criticism; in 1993, a law was passed that intended to "avoid new births of inferior quality and heighten the standards of the whole population” (Fernandes, 1994). Rigorous physical examinations were imposed on married couples to determine proper ‘fitness’ before procreation. In close to 30 years, the policy has prevented an estimated 300 million births, keeping the birth-rate very low (Huiting, 2002). Doctors advise couples who are at risk of producing defective offspring to refrain from marriage or reproduction. However, the ultimate decision is left to the adults. Handicapped people do live in disproportionate poverty, and the Chinese government has come close to passing legislation that would ban couples from having children with defects. However, such laws have not been passed. It can be seen that, while China is receptive to issues of imperfect birth, their society does not condone the wide-spread practice of eugenics in any form. Limiting families to one child may aim to control population growth, but does not aim to improve or alter the human gene pool in any way. Isolated practices of infanticide of female babies and forced sterilization of ‘imbeciles’ do occur, but are not a representation of the whole (Oster, 2005).

Population control of a similar kind exists in the form of abortion, a topic of intense controversy in the United States. A controversial book, “Freakonomics,” written by Steven Levitt, proposes the idea that eugenics is being practiced currently in the United States unintentionally through abortion (Levitt, 2005). He cites solid evidence that decreased crime rates in the 1990s correlated with increased abortion rates. From this, he argues that the types of people who have abortions are usually lower-class citizens who tend to make poorer life-choices. By having abortions, these people spare the U.S. many potential criminals (Wikipedia:Eugenics, 2006). Another de facto, yet unintentional source of eugenic practice in the U.S. is the alleged low birth-rates among intelligent women. Advocates of this theory suggest that intelligent women (with privilege and money) tend to postpone or even forsake childbirth in order to pursue higher education. Thus, those genes become underrepresented as women possessing less intelligence tend to give birth more frequently (Sailer, 2005). Abortion and the postponement of childbirth are certainly possible de facto sources of eugenics in the U.S., but there are many medical procedures available to those who wish to give their children greater privilege in the world.

In the mid-1990s, a survey of 3,000 geneticists in 37 countries revealed that the overwhelming believe among them is that “eugenics is alive and well” (King, 2000). Genetic counselors across the U.S. confirm that they do not place pressure on parents to make any decisions about their children. However, societal pressures against disability and negative phenotypes implicitly engineer eugenic outcomes in the end. While a genetic counselor may be aware of this and have the capacity to discourage eugenic mentalities, the overriding tenets of American culture will always promote eugenic decisions. Why should parents want anything but the best for their children? It is firmly ingrained into American culture to be the best, and parents reasonably wish for the best in their children. Thus, with the inception of genetic screening and pre-natal testing, the flood-gates have been opened on the ethics of birthing healthy babies.

Pre-natal screening has become a powerful tool for pregnant mothers. While the process benefits parents by warning them of any medical pathology present in their unborn child, it also presents an ethical dilemma. Many believe that it is unfair to society to birth a child once a genetic defect is known. In addition to this, 30% of interviewed genetics counselors admitted that they would give a parent negatively-slanted counseling once a defect is detected (King, 2000). Data from many other nations, such as China and India, confirms that a pervading believe about genetics counseling is that it exists to reduce the number of deleterious genes in a population. The very existence of genetics counseling in the first place confirms that the ideology of fit genes still exists. This laissez faire ideology has an outlet, which is genetics counseling.

VI. Today’s Eugenics – Biotechnology Misused?

Beyond genetics counseling and related technology, an explicit form of eugenics is being practiced everyday in the controversial procedure known as in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Along with this method of implantation, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is used to screen embryos for health before implantation into the mother’s uterus. Using this method, mothers are able to select the best embryos for pregnancy while discarding embryos that might lead to a defected baby (“Boy”, 2004). This medical procedure, deemed by many to be unethical yet growing in popularity, is a blatant practice of eugenics in today’s world. The more mother’s are able to determine the traits of their children, the more refined the human genome will become as the battle for perfection becomes easier. As medical technology improves and the field of genetics expands, more choice is allowed in the process of reproduction. With an increasingly competitive society, there is an inevitable movement towards eugenic policies, a universal human desire that has only taken on various forms throughout history. While it is inevitable that eugenics will cast its shadow over science and sociology in the future, there are a few potential flaws in the practice.

What determines exactly which human traits are genetic and which are not? Imbecility is certainly not a genetic trait, though science was used to engineer its eradication (Wikipedia:Eugenics, 2006). Many diseases are still being studied, and until the exact causes of the diseases are identified, humans have no right to declare the destruction of a gene they do not know.

According to the Hardey-Weinberg hypothesis, genotypic frequencies of an allele at a population’s equilibrium will follow expected patterns. For example, Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal condition in infants, is a genetic disease that causes brain degeneration due to the build up of a fatty-acid derivative (ganglioside) in the brain. The disease is an autosomal recessive disease and is found in much higher frequencies in Jewish populations than in the normal population of America (“Tay-Sachs”, 2004). According to Hardy-Weinberg principles, a population’s genome is in a healthy state when there are proper conditions such as random mating and migration in and out. However, in closed populations such as the Jewish and the Amish, the odds of bringing deleterious genes together increase greatly. As a result, autosomal recessive diseases proliferate in much higher frequencies, and these conditions are more commonly seen.

VII. Conclusion

If the ultimate goal in genetic technology is to create intelligent, athletic, or artistic individuals, then humanity is doing itself a great disservice. Like Hitler’s Aryan race, the human race could become a “purebred” race, full of tall, blonde individuals with similar personalities. But the very principles of genetics that today’s eugenics is built on spells out dire consequences. Engineering the gene pool into a bland mix of sameness will only promote the emergence of genetic disorders.

History and science have long been intertwined. The millions of people who have been sterilized or killed in the name of a better gene pool are unfortunate victims of bad science. Most would agree that eugenic actions during the first half of the 20th century were immoral, but they are blind to the undeniable practices that go on today. Pre-natal embryo screening, genetic counseling, and gene-therapy are all modern eugenic practices today. Science is a gift that can be used to heal and relieve suffering, but careful thought must be given to its uses before more people are tossed aside and labeled “imperfect”.

BBC Online. (1998). The War to End All Wars. Retrieved Nov 1, 2006. BBConline.com.

Black, Edwin. (2003). Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection. San Francisco Chronicle.

Blackwell, B.H. (1913). Ancient Eugenics. Broad Street: Oxford.

Boy or girl? Technology allows you to choose the sex of your baby. (2004). Doctor’s Lounge.net. Retrieved Nov 2, 2006, from http://doctorslounge.net.

Broberg and Nil-Hansen, ed. (2005). Eugenics And the Welfare State and Alexandra Stern, Eugenic nation: faults and frontiers of better breeding in modern America Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fernandes, Naresh. (1994, February 6). A Storm in a Test Tube. Sunday Times of India. 15.

Galton, Francis. (1904). Eugenics: Its definition, scope, and aims. The American Journal of Sociology, 10, 1.

Galton, Francis. (1869). Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: Macmillan.

Gerald, Posner and John Ware. (1986). Mengele - the complete story. McGraw Hill Book Company: New York.

Hu, Huiting. (2002, October 18). Family Planning and China’s Birth Control Situation. Retrieved Nov 1, 2006, from http://china.org.cn.

Kevles, Daniel. (1985). In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Knopf.

King, David. (2000). The Persistence of Eugenics. Genethics, 22.

Levitt, Steven. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. William Morrow: New York City.

Lombardo, Paul. Eugenic Sterilization Laws. Eugenics Archive 2006.

MacKenzie, Donald. (1981). Statistics in Britain, 1865-1930: The social construction of scientific knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.

Mazumdar, Pauline. (1997). The Rhetoric of Eugenics in Anglo-American Thought. Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 71.4, 729-731.

Oster, Emily. (2005). Explaining Asia's 'Missing Women. Population and Development Review, 31, 529-535.

Paul, Diane. (1995). Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the present. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Plato. (360 B.C.E.) The Republic.

Renzong, Qiu. (1999). A concern for the collective good: family planning in China. UNESCO Courier. September.

Sailer, Steve. (2005). The American Conservative.

Selgelid, Michael J. (2004). Neugenics? Monash Bioethics Review, 19, 9-33.

Tay-Sachs Disease. (2004). Something Jewish Online. Retrieved 2 Nov, 2006 from http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk.

Tredoux, Gavan. (2006). Galton.org. Retrieved 4 Nov, 2006, from http://galton.org.

Weindling, Paul. (1989). Health, race and German politics between national unification and Nazism. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1870-1945.

Wikipedia (2006). Eugenics. Retrieved November, 2006, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics.

Yad, Vashem The Holocaust: Definition and Preliminary Discussion. Retrieved Nov 4, 2006, from http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust.