IEET LIFE RIGHTS SECURITY VISION TITLE=
AboutProgramsEventsPublicationsForumsBlogContactSupport         Login      Register    


Member Log In:

Login
If not yet a member:
Register

Monthly newsletter Daily news feed Changesurfer Radio Blog feeds
Cyborg Buddha Project


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view


New at IEET


Why I think Pistorius should not be allowed to compete at the Olympics

How Many Earths?

Nanotechnology and the Potential for Global Governance

BioHollywood

Emergence - IEET News for May 15, 2008

Recent Comments


Ricky V Blodgett on 'Longevity Science - A Brief Snapshot of Progress' (2008 05 17)


Carlos M Tomblin on 'Enough is Enough: A Thinking Ape's Critique of Trans-Simianism' (2008 05 17)


Adam P on 'Dr. Pinker Lays the Smackdown on Leon Kass' (2008 05 17)


individual family on 'Embrace the End of Work' (2008 05 16)


Brittany on 'Aubrey on Barbara Walters Aging Special April 1' (2008 05 16)


IEET Fora




"The problem with repugnance and fear-and-trembling ethics is, they are good starting points but bad ending points. If intuition is the last word, then African-Americans are at the back of the bus, women and people who have no property aren't voting and we still have slaves."
Art Caplan, head of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania



TechEthics News


Snarky Compliments from Will Saletan

Cognitive Enhancement by Scientists

Annalee on PostGenderism

Transhuman, the comic

H+/Biocon/Technoprogressive Quiz at SAGE Crossroads





Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv



IEET > Rights > ReproRights > Directors > George Dvorsky

permalinkDiscuss in Forums subscribe


Bailey on Fukuyama’s ‘eugenics’


George Dvorsky

George Dvorsky


Sentient Developments


Posted: Mar 10, 2007

Looks like I’m not the only one who interprets over-the-top regulation of human biotech as a form of eugenics. Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey has penned a piece in which he warns, “Francis Fukuyama wants to control your reproductive decisions.”

In the article, titled ”Medievalizing Biotech Regulation,” Bailey describes Fukuyama’s recent initiative to create a regulatory agency in the United States that would be modeled after the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HEFA). This new agency would regulate the safety and efficacy of new biotechnologies and rule on their ethical merits. Fukuyama argues that it’s time for “social control.”

More specifically,

Fukuyama explained that the new agency would regulate anything having to do with assisted reproduction techniques (ART). This would include IVF, ooplasm transfer, sex selection either by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) or sperm sorting. The agency would also regulate research involving human reproductive tissues including all embryonic stem cell research and anything dealing with human developmental biology....

Fukuyama would completely ban human reproductive cloning, the creation of human animal chimeras for the purpose of reproduction, germline genetic modifications, any procedure that would alter the genetic relationship of parents to children, and the patenting of human embryos.

I’m not opposed to regulatory agencies in principle; institutions such as these are both necessary and fairly inevitable. What concerns me, however, is when extreme bioconservatives like Fukuyama take the initiative. These regulatory precedents are dangerously constrictive. It is Fukuyama, after all, who has made it painfully clear that he is opposed to not just human enhancement, but life extending technologies as well.

As Bailey points out in his article, these regulatory bodies often function as bureaucratic obstructions to research and development. Moreover, when given too much political clout, and if guided by anachronistic notions of human reproduction and biology, these agencies may also act in a way that’s reminiscent of 20th century eugenics.

Ultimately, Fukuyama’s agency will work to enforce a preconceived, non-normative and state imposed vision of human reproduction and health in general.


George Dvorsky serves on the Board of Directors for the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. George is the Director of Operations for Commune Media, an advertising and marketing firm that specializes in marketing science. George produces Sentient Developments blog and podcast.

permalinkDiscuss in Forums • Send to: ¡ del.icio.us icon ¡ Digg icon


COMMENTS


YOUR COMMENT

Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:




Next entry: Mameli defends reproductive technologies

Previous entry: DARPA Director talks about human enhancement technology

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376