THE ETHICAL DILEMMA OF MODERN EUGENICS

Humanity has been trying to achieve perfection since the dawn of time. In the book
"Medawar Lecture: Is Science Dangerous? In 1998, according to Lewis Wolpert, there was a
movement called the “Eugenics Movement.” “Eugenics was defined by science to improve
the quality or survivability rate of every human in the future by giving them more suitable
traits so that they can thrive in the constantly changing world” (L. Wolpert, 2005). Because of
this movement back in the 19th century, many people suffered, and it caused more harm than
good. The author, Lewis Wolpert, stated in the book that other races, especially non-
Americans, experienced discrimination because most scientists who supported the movement
stated that black people are inferior, Italians do always commit crimes, even though Poles are
intelligent, they are very hostile to other races, and many more. But has modern eugenics
changed? or is it still like what it was back then? Does it do more good than bad now? And
how does it affect society in the 21st century?

New technologies, such as gene editing, are sometimes referred to as "modern

eugenics." These technologies differ from historical eugenics in that ethical concerns and
legislation seek to prevent misuse and prejudice, even if they have the ability to alter the
genetic makeup of populations. Opinions on whether these developments signify a good or
bad shift, however, differ. Gene editing and preimplantation genetic diagnostics are examples
of modern eugenics technology that can prevent or lessen genetic abnormalities, improving
the health of people and families. Genetic research advances the understanding of disease,
paving the way for personalized therapy and focused therapeutics. But it's important to utilize
these technologies ethically, respecting people's autonomy, and making sure there are
safeguards against misuse.

In 1883, eugenics was described by Francis Galton as a way of enhancing the quality
of the gene pool in general. According to Buchanan et al. (2000), the common objective of
eugenicists was to ensure that people born into this world are capable of leading better lives
and improving the lives of others. Based on early theories of heredity, eugenics were initiated
to minimize the spread of undesirable genes and to maximize the desirable ones in the aim of
improving the humankind. This concept of Eugenics has left a deep scar in the society.
Originally, eugenics was initiated to improve the quality of the human race but it turns out
that having this process had greatly affected people in a negative way.

Some academics and ethicists further subdivided eugenics into positive and negative
varieties. The practice of encouraging the breeding of desirable human traits in order to
increase the number of standard species is known as progressive eugenics, which is another
term for positive eugenics. On the other hand, negative eugenics encourages "fit" people to
procreate while stopping "unfit" people from doing so, often against their will. Some aspects
of negative eugenics include sterilization, restrictions on marriage, and, in extreme cases,
euthanasia. Negative eugenics primarily targeted people with mental illnesses, the poor,
people of color, and people with other "deficient" genes. Their genes were prevented from
"tainting" the gene pool and putting the human race in jeopardy by preventing these people
from having children. New liberal eugenics is said to help people and communities by
increasing genetic diversity and creating the finest potential offspring because it is founded
on solid science and individual consent, however, Rider (2019) reports that 148 female
prisoners in California were forcibly sterilized in 2010. The doctors working for the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sterilized these women against their
will. Before a procedure can be performed, women must give their legal consent by
completing an approved form that acknowledges the procedure's long-term implications.
However, it was found that all 148 cases lacked legal authorization; hospital records were
either completely missing or falsified. Prenatal testing is another tool that modern eugenics
has brought forth to detect certain potential health issues that a child may have ahead of time
during pregnancy. Approximately 100% of fetuses in Iceland with Down syndrome were
aborted using this tool. Comparable figures were applied to the United States, where 67% of
fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome through prenatal testing were aborted. As stated by
M. A. Lee and A. L. Caplan. (2008), although the original form of eugenics is not practiced
today, society is still in danger. The authors asserted that applying these new genetic
technologies, such as genetic engineering and prenatal diagnosis, could create more
destructive eugenics compared in the past. While offering the potential to prevent genetic
diseases and even enhance human capabilities, Savulescu (2001) argues that genetic
engineering also raises serious concerns about exacerbating social inequalities and
jeopardizing human dignity. Bostrom (2009) acknowledges the potential of eugenics in
enhancing the quality of lives among people, but raises concerns about it breaching
inequalities in the society, individuals having no more freedom, and the rise of new conflicts.
Additionally, the practice of eugenics has been potentially associated with misconceptions
and misunderstandings on race and genetics leading to ideas of being superior and inferior.
Anent to these negative beliefs, bias, discrimination, and the dehumanization of certain
groups have become predominating. The Holocaust, rooted in the twisted logic of eugenics,
stands as a tragic reminder of the devastating consequences of prejudice and discrimination.
By studying this dark period, we can gain a deeper understanding of the dangers of bias and
work towards building a more just and equitable future where every individual is valued and
respected, regardless of their background or perceived genetic makeup. Eugenics, driven by
subjective and discriminatory standards, perpetuated harmful biases against specific groups
based on factors like race, ethnicity, and social class. These actions caused irreversible harm
that must be acknowledged and never repeated.

Throughout history, eugenics has ignited fierce debate due to its complex nature and
lasting impact on societies. While initially conceived with the ambition of improving the
population's genetic makeup, its implementation often descended into discriminatory
practices, human rights abuses, and unthinkable acts like forced sterilization and genocide.
This dark chapter reminds us of the devastating consequences that can arise when subjective
ideas of genetic "improvement" fuel prejudice and injustice. The hope of curing diseases and
boosting human potential with genetic technologies comes with the risk of exacerbating
social inequalities, creating an underclass, and compromising our sense of what it means to
be human. These risks include increased inequality, reduced autonomy, and potential
conflicts. Even though eugenics was believed to be a thing of the past, its influence can still
be seen in today's genetic advancements. Eventually, society will have to face the moral and
ethical implications of rapid technological progress. Striking a balance between maximizing
the benefits of genetic technologies and preventing misuse or biased outcomes is crucial.
Strong ethical frameworks and regulations are necessary to ensure that genetic advancements
don't compromise human dignity, equality, and social harmony.
 References
Aultman, J. (2006). Eugenomics: Eugenics and Ethics in the 21 Century. Genomics, Society
and Policy, Vol.2, pp.28-49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-5354-2-2-28

Bostrom, N. (2009). The future of human enhancement. Ethics. 119 (3), 341-385.
https://doi.org/10.1086/603877

Buchanan et al. (2000). Eugenomics: Eugenics and Ethics in the 21 Century. ResearchGate.
Retrieved December 2, 2023, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31591637_Eugenomics_Eugenics_and_Ethics_in_t
he_21_Century

Lee, M. A., & Caplan, A. L. (2008). Eugenics in the 21st century. The American Journal of
Bioethics, 8(6), 1-24.
Rider, C. (2019). Modern Eugenics in California. Berkeley Political Review. Retrieved
December 3, 2023, from https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2019/12/10/modern-eugenics-in-california/
Savulescu, J. (2001). The ethics of human genetic engineering. The Hastings Center Report,
31(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2307/3528281

Understanding Eugenics. (2023, May 2). Anthroholic. Retrieved December 13, 2023, from
https://anthroholic.com/eugenics
Vizcarrondo F. E. (2014). Human enhancement: The new eugenics. The Linacre quarterly,
81(3), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000021

Wolpert, L. (2005). The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous?. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1458), 1253-1258.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.2005.1659