Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
for caution, especially the risk of irreversible disasters, but also bad ones,
particularly the claim that human nature is inviolate. In Glover's view,
our nature left a lot to be desired. He wrote:
Preserving the human race as it is will seem an acceptable option to all those
who can watch the news on television and feel satisfied with the world. It will
appeal to those who can talk to their children about the history of the twenti-
eth century without wishing they could leave some things out. When, in the rest
of this topic, the case for and against various changes is considered, the fact that
they
are
changes will be treated as no objection at all.
63
Contemporary Worries and the Uses of History
As late as the 1980s, the pros and cons of human genetic engineering
were generally argued on their merits. That is, critics contended vari-
ously that the enterprise was too risky, the underlying scientific assump-
tions were too reductionist, the consequences for biodiversity were dire,
the existing social inequalities would be exacerbated, or the alternative
approaches to disease would be usurped. Some maintained that tamper-
ing with the genome was wrong because God—and others said that evo-
lution—knew best. But it was rare to oppose human genetic engineering
on the grounds that it constituted eugenics, at least without further argu-
ment. Indeed, many writers took for granted that human genetic engi-
neering either was or would lead to some kind of eugenics—the question
was whether it would be the good or the bad kind. That the label, in
itself, did not necessarily condemn is reflected in the fact that many
enthusiasts were unembarrassed to call genetic engineering a “new
eugenics.” Critics therefore had to explain what they thought was wrong
with a eugenics that relied on individual choice.
Today, the situation has changed. Notwithstanding recent efforts by
some philosophers to spur a real discussion about what, if anything, is
intrinsically wrong with eugenics, in popular and even most academic
discourse, to label a practice eugenics is thereby to denounce it. There is
thus little felt necessity to identify the specific offense(s). There are many
possible candidates, and it is often difficult to tell which are assumed.
(Since some are mutually inconsistent, the answer cannot be all.)
64
But
the histories that typically accompany these discussions imply that one
of the worst wrongs is coercion.
