Nine

ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EUGENICS
Stephen Wilkinson

1. Positive and Negative Eugenics

Academic work on eugenics often utilizes a distinction between positive and

negative eugenics. Much of this work assumes that the distinction is morally
significant and that positive eugenics is worse than negative eugenics (other
things being equal). Despite its pervasiveness and supposed importance
however, the nature of the positive-negative distinction remains unclear and
the terms “negative” and “positive” are used in several different ways in the
literature. This chapter aims to provide clarification by analyzing and
explaining some different accounts of the distinction and by showing how
these relate to other key ideas such as the therapy-enhancement distinction and
concepts of health and disease. The chapter also provides a short overview of
the reasons for thinking that the positive-negative eugenics distinction is
morally significant.
This chapter is exclusively concerned with a distinction within eugenics, not
with how to differentiate eugenics from other categories. Nonetheless,
something should be said first about the meaning of “eugenics.” Francis
Galton defines it as the study of “the conditions under which men of a high
type are produced” and as “the science which deals with all influences that
improve the inborn qualities of a race.”1 Eugenics however is not merely a
field of study and, as Diane Paul notes, “it is less often identified as a science
than as a social movement or policy, as in Bertrand Russell’s definition: ‘the
attempt to improve the biological character of a breed by deliberate methods
adopted to that end.’”2 For the present purposes, Russell’s definition will suffice.
However, it should be noted that this is only a working definition and much
more could be said about what eugenics is. Moreover, this working definition
will almost certainly turn out to be too wide, since people might attempt to
“improve the biological character” of humanity in lots of different ways, and I
doubt that we want to classify all of these as eugenic.
Something should also be said about the different kinds of practices that are
likely to fall under the general heading “eugenics.” In contemporary bioethics,
selective reproduction is the practice which appears most often to be called
“eugenic.” Eugenic selection of this kind aims to encourage the passing on of
116 STEPHEN WILKINSON

“good genes” or to prevent the passing on of “bad genes.” Traditionally,

eugenics strived to achieve this by selective breeding. Contemporary
reproductive technologies, however, mean that selective breeding is not now
the only possible method. Another is the in vitro selection of embryos (those
with “good genes”) using preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), and
similarly the preconception selection of ova and sperm (again, those with
“good genes”). Based on the working definition of “eugenics,” neither PGD
nor gamete selection are necessarily eugenic (with much depending on the
purposes to which they are put) but either could constitute eugenics if used
deliberately to “improve the gene pool.”
The following characterizations of the positive-negative distinction are
fairly typical of those found in the ethics literature:3

“positive eugenics” … aims to increase desirable traits rather than reduce

undesirable ones …4

positive eugenics attempts to increase the number of favorable or desir-

able genes in the human gene pool, while negative eugenics attempts to
reduce the number of undesirable or harmful genes, e.g., genes that cause
genetic diseases.5

“Negative eugenics” refers to the elimination of diseases or defects,

whereas “positive eugenics” refers to the enhancement of traits.6

Negative eugenics is a systematic effort to minimize the transmission of

genes that are considered deleterious, in contrast to positive eugenics,
which aims to maximize the transmission of desirable genes.7

The aim of negative eugenics is disease prevention and health promotion,

not enhancement of normal capacities.8

On these definitions, most PGD presently practiced in the UK is negative

eugenics (if it is eugenics at all) since its aim is to “screen out” conditions such
as beta thalassaemia, cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and
Huntington’s disease.9 If however PGD could be used instead to select
children with dispositions to be exceptionally athletic, or attractive, or
intelligent, then this would be positive eugenics (on the assumption that these
features are desirable).
Characterizing the positive-negative distinction may however be less
straightforward than it at first appears. For in most, maybe even all, cases the
same eugenic practice can be described as both “negative” and “positive.” This
arises most obviously in cases where the trait in question is a matter of degree,
such as athleticism, attractiveness, or intelligence. For, in such cases, the