Pros And Cons Of Eugenics

The original or classical eugenics movement was conceived in the late 19th century and served as a way to “keep certain strains out of our blood”.1 The more progressive eugenics movement, denoted positive eugenics, has a slightly different undercurrent – and promotes better prenatal and natal health in order to improve population health.2 Nonetheless, the underlying idea of eugenics as a means to promote “survival of the fittest” has been perpetuated through prenatal genetic testing and, a step further along the process, human genetic engineering.
Modern bioscience and technology have created prenatal genetic testing, a way to screen for genetic deficiencies and/or abnormalities that may pose a threat to the viability of offspring – a terminal
A secondary field of positive eugenics emphasizes that it’s never too late to enhance an individual’s genes – through human genetic engineering.3 Ironically, this branch of eugenics is more aligned with that of classical eugenics and Nazi Germany’s Erbgesundheitsgerichte in that it assumes two things: 1) the role of the individual in aiding the survival of the fittest and 2) superiority of certain genetic characteristics. These individuals select gene therapy to either “[modify] or [remove] genes to prevent or treat genetic disease” or “enhance [traits of] their progeny”.3 A “positive”, if one can use that term, is that these individuals do not believe in directly forcing gene modification upon others. This modality is more frequently used to correct genetic deficiencies, and although in the clinical trial phase, has already successfully treated a 4-year old with Severe Combined Immune Deficiency Syndrome (SCIDS).3 However, such technologies can be utilized in profiteering from enhanced performance – a result that is more permanent than the illegal use of steroids. George Q. Daley, a stem cell biologist, expressed his hesitancy regarding gene therapy in terms of “using a new technology to do something as bold as changing someone’s germ line – not just for that individual, but for all of the offspring”.4 This propagates the notion that earlier adversaries of eugenics held: the autonomy of