Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
much more precise in its effects. And at least in theory, it makes possi-
ble entirely new kinds of improvement. Even in the 1960s, before the
development of recombinant DNA technology, some enthusiasts for
human genetic engineering predicted that it would one day be possible
to create new traits, not simply, as with traditional breeding schemes,
to increase the proportion of the most desirable existing genotypes.
2
Because it seems to promise (or threaten) a much more effective means
to choose the kind of children we want—including the potential to actu-
ally transform human beings—the issue of eugenics is understandably at
the forefront of discussions of human genetic engineering.
The kind of eugenics that proponents hope and critics fear will
result, however, has little in common with the policies and practices
typically invoked in these discussions. In warning of the eugenic poten-
tial of the new technologies, critics tend to identify eugenics with
compulsory sterilization and other brutal exercises of state power. Yet
today, almost no one believes that the state will force parents to geneti-
cally engineer their progeny. Indeed, what critics primarily fear is “back-
door” eugenics—the collective impact of practices voluntarily chosen by
consumers (especially in the context of a largely unregulated fertility
industry), rather than those mandated by governments.
3
“This is the
eugenics that happens when the state is specifically excluded from repro-
ductive decisions. It is the eugenics of the free market, and results
inevitably from a combination of the current quasireligious faith in the
absolute virtues of unfettered markets and the rapid growth of genetic
knowledge. The whole point is that we are about to be deluged with
offers of choice,” writes science journalist Bryan Appleyard.
4
The same
point is succinctly expressed by antibiotechnology activist Jeremy Rifkin:
“The old eugenics was steeped in political ideology and motivated by
fear and hate. The new eugenics is being spurred by market forces and
consumer desire.”
5
Thus, if we are to look to history for lessons, the most relevant pre-
cursors would not seem to be state-sponsored policies of negative selec-
tion, such as compulsory sterilization. Their proponents aimed to cull
the weak as a means to counter the degeneration resulting from profli-
gate breeding by undesirables. In general, their goal was to maintain the
status quo. As Peter Morton notes, since English eugenicists “were more
impelled by the fear of social degeneration than by any genuine hope of
