Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
species was deteriorating under an ever-increasing “genetic load” of dele-
terious mutations. In his view, this burden was attributable both to
expanded medical and military uses of radiation, especially atmospheric
nuclear testing, and therapeutic advances in medicine, which allowed
individuals who would once have died before childbearing to survive and
reproduce. New radiation-induced mutations, added to the already-high
load, would be increasingly difficult to accommodate and ultimately
would threaten our viability as a species. To counter this threat, Muller
urged a less casual attitude toward the use of ionizing radiation. He also
hoped that technological advances would make it possible to survey
genotypes and identify the most burdened individuals, who he assumed
would voluntarily refrain from reproducing. In this version of eugenics,
the enemy is no longer a group, such as Slavs or the feebleminded, but
mutation, which can and does affect everyone.
45
As Muller himself put
it, “None of us can cast stones, for we are all fellow mutants together.”
46
His plan is socially neutral. It represents what sociologist Barbara Katz
Rothman, in a different context, has called the new “microeugenics,”
which concerns the genes of individuals, in contrast to the old “macroeu-
genics,” which concerned groups of people.
47
Although Muller's warnings about the dangers of increased mutation
had an enormous impact, their implications were essentially conserva-
tive: the need to reduce exposure to radiation and for some form of
negative eugenics that would rely on individuals' sense of genetic
responsibility. But the warnings also had an impact more directly related
to human genetic engineering. Although Muller did not view the genome
as sacred, he certainly considered it a precious possession, which obli-
gations to future generations required us to protect. For environmental-
ists, the idea that we had a duty to prevent the degradation of our
genome proved useful in the campaign against the overuse of chemical
mutagens, especially pesticides. The more cherished the genome, the
greater the strength of the case for protecting it against environmental
insult. The link is particularly evident in
Silent Spring
where Rachel
Carson, citing Muller, writes of the need to protect the “genetic heritage”
of humankind, characterized as “a possession infinitely more valuable
than individual life.” According to Carson, the “genome is a sacred pos-
session,” which we must preserve.
48
Ironically, given Muller's view that
the human genome could stand considerable improvement, his writings
