Mikelle Ostler

Bio 1010
Imagine a world free of disease, a generation of outstanding intelligence, a population
without physical or mental disability- a perfect Utopia. Many people believe that is possible with
Eugenics, or “the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of
heredity” (Encyclopedia Britannica). For years, the science of Eugenics has been largely
debated. Those in favor of Eugenics would argue that the non-random selection of traits would
result in a healthier, stronger population within the course of a few generations. Those against
it however, believe that practicing the science of Eugenics is unethical and goes against human
Marian Van Court, a writer for The Occidental Quarterly, reported a study of two identical
twins that were separated at birth and raised apart. Scientists found that both children, despite
their different upbringing, were not only extremely similar in mannerisms, likes and dislikes,
musical abilities, and other characteristics, but they were almost identical in IQ. This incredible
case offers evidence that human intelligence is largely woven into our DNA, as are many
desirable traits. This evidence gives way to the belief that humans are in control of their own
Scientists in favor of Eugenics have also brought up the possibility of creating a
healthier, stronger population. If a healthy male and a healthy female reproduced, it is assumed
they would have a healthy child. If one or both parents were diseased, it could be assumed their
child would carry or portray the same disease, with the ability to pass it on to future generations.
With Eugenics, scientists believe unfavorable traits, such as disease, illness, and disability,
could be removed from society.
Other groups consider Eugenics to be immoral and unprincipled. Some even compare it
to events such as the Holocaust, calling it a use of Nazi ethics. The United States enforced
sterilization of those deemed insane in the early 20
Century. In 1994, China restricted
marriage between people with certain disabilities and disease. Though extreme, these
examples provide evidence of forcible application, showing that an attempt at a perfect people
is a slippery slope.
There is another argument that must be considered. Altering cells and gene mutation to
create a similar population essentially changes the genetic makeup to become more similar,
narrowing the gene pool. This could lead to more problems in later generations. A smaller gene
pool gives way to an entire new set of complications and difficulties.
While both sides provide good evidence and sound arguments, I believe that eugenics is
a good tool, especially in the practice of creating a healthier population. I think that there is a
fine line, however, when it comes to human morals and it must be used with caution. Small
scale Eugenics, such as choosing to procreate with someone possessing ideal traits you would
like in a child, is not likely to result in mass extermination.

Works Cited
"Eugenics." Columbia University Press, 1 Jan. 2004. Web. 1 May 2014.
"Eugenics." The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc, 2005. . Print.
Van Court, Marian. "The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell." The Occidental Quarterly 1 Jan. 2004. Print.