Does neo-eugenics represent a promethean form of enlightenment—a risk taken to avert imminent and irreversible disaster? Part One: Procreation, Afterlife and the Illusion of Choice
...
Complete entry
Posted by
jasoncstone on 06/21 at 09:38 PM
I’ve given this some thought and I think some of the problems with previous attempts at Eugenics are:
1. A limited definition of the “ideal human” that is promoted using pseudoscience in insulting ways.
2. Coercive groups forcing participation.
3. The threat of a significant reduction of diversity in the human genome or “monoculture”.
I think these obstacles can be addressed by creating a totally optional program that people can explore themselves while maintaining their privacy. Since it would be opt-in only, it would resist a single ideal being enforced by a coercive authority. It would also preserve more diversity since we can expect that large parts of the globe will not participate. We can also require clinics to save DNA samples of all participants such that their code can be reintroduced into the population should some catastrophe occur through loss of diversity.
I imagine it working something like this:
1. A couple that is considering having a child can purchase a take home kit that will analyse DNA samples from them both.
2. The kit may be able to immediately signal if there is a high risk of an unhealthy baby being born without compromising the privacy of the couple. It could test for things like Alzheimers, retardation, common physical deformaties etc.
3. Potential parents that feel the risk is too high, could contact a special clinic that could discuss options for embryo selection or some equivalent procedure that would raise the probability of their offspring being born healthy.
4. Both parent’s DNA would be preserved in case there is some DNA monoculture catastrophe in the future.
5. Some official body could create a measure of how much genetic diversity is lost each year due to these procedures in order to estimate the threat of a monoculture forming. They could also report on the long term efficacy of selecting offspring using these methods.
Initially the DNA tests may be of the mail-in variety such as those available today, however, it isn’t too far off to imagine that an internet connected microarray could be purchased someday from a drug store that could analyze your DNA at home using the latest research available on the web to determine risk factors for you and your partner’s offspring.
It seems that in the long run many genetic disorders would almost totally be eradicated since even if someone’s parents chose to refrain from screening, children suffering from a disorder almost certainly would not. No coercion needed!
This seems ethical and effective.
Posted by
André on 06/22 at 03:47 AM
“To reach any consensus on childbirth restriction, we must circumvent a resurgence of eugenics in the traditional sense and break free from antiquated religious beliefs.”
I fail to see why should even consider childbirth restriction, at this historical moment. For which purpose? All the statements about human overpopulation are either scientifically controversial, or plain false. We have plenty of space, food, and resources on our blue planet for everyone. The problem is improving the access to these resources to the disadvantaged ones. Saying that sometime in the future we are going to be 8, 9, or 10 billions does not imply a catastrophic outcome. Why should it?
So, to promote something useless and unethical like childbirth restriction, we have to find prettier names for medical practices banned since Nuremberg trials, and get rid of religious principles that attribute sacredness to life? No, thanks.
Also
“As bioethicist Francis Fukuyama suggests, a new “kinder, gentler eugenics” may result from seemingly compassionate choices like this one, made by parents and other guardians who wish to spare their offspring any unnecessary discomfort or pain an unsympathetic world might offer”
Should parents have the possibility to design beforehand personality traits of their children? There is nothing “kind” about such an extreme violation of human auto-determination. Who said that homosexuality is a negative personal trait, something that should be counter-selected? And how? By suppressing each zygote that displays the Xq28 gene? What for? To prevent people like Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde, or Alan Turing to come to life?
Posted by
urbanmolecule on 06/23 at 11:41 AM
Andre, you raise some great points.
In response: first, our religious beliefs are more deeply connected to production and consumption than we realize. The close ties between Church and State are enough to suggest this; it’s a complex relationship that has a lot to do with ideology, faith, and compliance—compassion, not so much.
Second: I agree that our planet has everything 8, 9 or 12 billion people need to thrive. The problem is that our business habits have led to disparity, environmental disaster and a general hoarding of resources. Improving access to resources, as you suggest, is not a viable answer, unfortunately (not yet)—because improving access cannot necessarily guarantee profit, at least not in the sense that drives free markets today. We must change our habits to do what you propose. For now, we will choose the path most in line with viable modes of production and consumption, lest the entire system collapse in on itself. It’s also helpful to consider the “antiquated” before “religious beliefs” as key.. let’s figure out together what that means. To get the ball rolling: google “Africa, Vatican, birth control, AIDS” and work from there.
and finally: re Fukuyama and “kind” eugenics. I believe the word was placed in quotes to signal irony, in that such choices made on behalf of the individual, from outside of the individual, can never be kind, only calculated. These types of decisions have been made for us since before we were conceived—how transparent the process is another story altogether.
Also, with regard to designer babies: I happen to agree with you, but be careful what you champion; regarding your earlier statement, many of those religious principles that “attribute sacredness to life” are the same principles that would have justified embryo screening and genetic manipulation for Michelangelo, Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing, had they been available at the time. For my thoughts on Alan Turing, father of computer science, see my opinion piece for The Huffington Post, just out today, here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-de-la-torre/alan-turing-father-of-com_b_1620264.html
Thanks for keeping me on my toes, and for keeping the discussion going!
Posted by
urbanmolecule on 06/23 at 11:43 AM
Jasoncstone, interesting proposition, although a bit scary in terms of commercialization. Privatizing health care introduces a myriad of problems, given that the primary goal of any business is to make profits. As we see today, ethics often takes a back seat to the bottom line if not regulated correctly. I’m interested to see where this goes, can you link me to your research?
IEET Blog