By Jacob Derin
Recently, UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health has been criticized for maintaining a “Genealogical Eugenic Institute Fund.” The fund promised to “support research and education on policies, practices and technologies that could affect the distribution of traits in the human race.”
Though the UC system has good reason to be wary of the ethical ramifications of this kind of research, I don’t think that it must be totally prohibited.
There is an important distinction between “positive” and “negative” eugenics. The former refers to efforts to promote the existence of “desirable” genetic traits in a human population, whereas the latter refers to efforts to curtail the reproduction of those with “undesirable” traits. The worst legacies of eugenics, and the reason why the word still carries so much emotional and moral baggage, is its practice by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s, and its role in justifying the Holocaust.
These were mostly examples of “negative” eugenics that used violent, coercive methods, such as murder and sterilization. However, this kind of coercion doesn’t have to be how eugenics is practiced. Modern medicine has given us tools that open up other avenues.
The Genealogical Eugenic Institute Fund sought to study issues “related to family planning, infertility, assisted reproduction technologies, prenatal screening, abortion, gene editing and gene modification.” These technologies now allow for the possibility of reducing the likelihood of a child having genetic diseases or other dangerous genetic traits. Should this avenue of research be forever foreclosed because of atrocities committed in the 20th century?
Of course, there are legitimate reasons for the UC system to worry about these modern “sanitized” eugenics. There are concerns over whether these technologies are really effective and whether they might do more harm than good. The only way to eliminate these concerns, however, is to make a sincere effort to study the issue.
Without research in this area, it can’t ever improve.
Then there are ethical concerns: i.e. is it right to interfere at all in the process of reproduction? Some common objections are that such efforts might make inequality worse, by allowing the rich to essentially “buy better genes,” that these efforts would necessarily be subject to the same kind of prejudices and biases that motivated uglier racial eugenics, and that they represent a threat to existing communities of disabled people.
While the threat of inequality is real and pervasive, I do not find it a convincing argument against the kind of research Berkeley’s fund was doing in this area.
Even if these technologies are very expensive and only available to the wealthy, they still have the potential to do a great deal of good. Any good which can be done for people with potential genetic disabilities or other harmful genetic traits should be embraced. And while the cost will likely be very high in the beginning, like most technology, it will probably become cheaper as scientists get better at producing it.
Biases and prejudices are probably the most morally problematic aspect of genetics research. This is an area with a long history of those biases. However, I don’t think that this has to be the way we do things in the future. Universities generally have fairly strict ethical expectations of studies done with their resources. Just because these biases have been a feature of past eugenics research doesn’t necessarily mean that it will have to be in the future.
The last concern when referring to people with disabilities is, I believe, most easily answered by turning to the distinction between positive and negative eugenics. People have a right to reproduce and not to have the government or medical experts interfere in that process, as the U.S. government has done in the past. But, as long as these kinds of procedures are just tools, which nobody is obligated to use, we do not need to fear that they will pose a danger to the freedoms of people with disabilities.
Technology itself is not a bad or coercive thing. It is just a tool.
The historical connotations of the word “eugenics” will be difficult to get past. It has been a discipline that has justified atrocities and human rights violations. But, with the aid of modern technology and a respect for people’s autonomy, it need not do so in the future.
As long as it is properly regulated, the kind of research done by Berkeley’s Genealogical Eugenic Institute Fund should be allowed to continue.
Thank you for the article, Jacob. I agree with your conclusion that fears based on past history of misusage of a concept or principle should not be the deciding factor in future research.
As long as there has been science, there has been push-back with regard to both the ethics of pursuing that research and its outcomes. Consider the more histrionic objections to cowpox turning people into hybrids of cows & people, an objection based on misunderstanding and fear. Unfortunately, we have not left these kinds of irrational objections behind as witnessed by today’s conspiracy theory that Bill Gates’ vaccines contain microchips to control our behavior.
The bigger issue for me is the involvement of government in reproductive choice, whether that involves whether or not to have a child, or whether or not one can opt for potentially life-saving, or altering gene modification. I strongly believe these medical decisions should remain between the patient and the treating physician.
” Unfortunately, we have not left these kinds of irrational objections behind”
We have strong evidence that over 70,000,000 Americans are too superstitious and ignorant to understand simple scientific concepts.
“The bigger issue for me is the involvement of government…I strongly believe these medical decisions should remain between the patient and the treating physician.”
True for all medical issues. However, without the government to protect their rights children of the religious and stupid are left to die by their parent’s superstitions and ignorance.
“Faith-based medical neglect is the only kind of child abuse and neglect that’s actually protected by law in many states,” Rita Swan co-founder of Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty
There’s really no need to worry about this.
Captain Kirk “proved” that there’s nothing to it, some 50-plus years ago. And then again about 15 years after that.
He also proved that it doesn’t lead to better TV shows, unless you like “Fantasy Island”.
Actually, he will prove that several hundred years from now.
The real elephant in the room is selective abortion based on trait. Not taking a stand, just pointing out the issue. Someone finds out their kid will have a syndrome that will likely mean the child will live less than one year, and decide to abort. Can be between medical provider and patient? Child will have heart defect and unlikely to live a normal life, and decide to abort. Can be between medical provider and patient? Child will have down’s syndrome, , and decide to abort. Can be between medical provider and patient? Child will be very short, and decide to abort. Can be between medical provider and patient? Child will have brown eyes, and decide to abort. Can be between medical provider and patient? Child will be a girl, and decide to abort. Can be between medical provider and patient?
Where is the line?
Isn’t there a related song about that, from Randy Newman? (Which I always understood to be poking at the underlying idea, in general.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfyS-S-IJs
Why does there need to be a line drawn? If the answer is between the patient and their doctor, the only ones that need to know anything about the decision are the patient and the doctor. Nobody else needs to be involved, or for that matter, to care. If it isn’t your body…
I’m not comfortable with abortion being a means to designing a better child through trial-and-error multiple pregnancies — for height? –for eye color? –for “I want a boy!” sex?. There is a line for me. Aborting fetuses because they have the trait of being short, brown-eyed or female if a society values tall, blue-eyed males — and keeping those fetuses through to birth — is not a path I’m comfortable with. Sounds a bit (Godwin’s law alert) “Hitlerian”. What if these tests could tell a child’s tendency toward being Jewish, and the parents wanted a Christian baby — would it be OK to abort the Jewish fetus? Is aborting a child that has Down’s Syndrome “OK” ?
I doubt you will find many (if any) legitimate physicians in the country who would allow such actions to take place on simple ethical grounds. Perhaps there are a few, but they will be just that, few and far between, so the incidents of what you fear will be next to non-existent. I think we should make decisions based on real problems, not on the fear of imaginary or at best, extremely rare ones. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be safe, available, hopefully rare, and none of your business unless you are the patient or their doctor.
There’s that fear shaming as a rhetorical tactic thing again. The Jews who voted for Hitler probably told the Jews who didn’t vote for Hitler that they were fearing things that were non-existent, such as those rumors that Hitler would round up the Jews and try to exterminate the entire Jewish people. Just fear. It hadn’t happened. Yet. Just FEAR. And yes, I purposefully trumped with the same use of Godwin’s Law from earlier this week, just to show how that works. Like a türd in the punch bowl.
Or if done to abort unwanted unwanted traits. Not a ‘thing’ yet, so ostrich behavior works. For now.
Alan M. – Your comments in response to my post are not worthy of you. Unless you are the one having the abortion your beliefs are not relevant, nor are your hypotheticals. Unless you have evidence of a doctor allowing the decisions you imply, your fears are just that, fears, not reality.
If your goal is to minimize abortions (for any reason) then work to provide viable alternatives. Make contraception free and readily available to all who need it, and identify and prosecute the sperm donors (when called for) to ensure that the mother and child receive appropriate care and financial support through adulthood. Do that and the rate of abortions will become inconsequential.
Those ‘tests’ can disclose propensity toward Tay-Sacs (ethnic Jewish, primarily), CF (cystic fibrosis) [primarily ‘white’], sickle cell anemia (Black, mainly)…
BTW it is Down Syndrome, not ‘Down’s Syndrome’… and a ‘tendency toward being Jewish’? Really? Like any child born of a Jewish mother, or Sammy Davis, Jr.? Really?
I FULLY agree with your main point… abortion happens naturally (look at definition)… why I am only child… Mom was pregnant 3 times… I was the only “product of conception” to survive 4 weeks… abortion should not be a means of “un-natural selection”, nor as an alternative to birth control due to consensual sex… there are situations where abortion is completely ‘righteous’… ex. when Mom and fetus are both at grave risk, and continuation of the pregnancy would severely jeopardize one or both…
But just my opinion… but selecting for gender, possible disabilities, possible life “faiths”, etc., is abhorent to me. Again, just my opinion… the law is clear… one person of the three involved, gets to decide… Roe regrets her decision… true story…
WM . . . here’s a hint: NO, not really!
Actually they are, by definition, worthy of me, as they are my comments.
As the topic of this discussion moves this into a new ethical arena that would affect society profoundly, that issue can be discussed by any and everyone as an ethical quandary, not to be quashed by conflating it with a discussion of abortion, which it isn’t. Do not unpaint my thoughts by using the cheap rhetorical trick of shutting them down as ‘irrelevant’. Instead, how about telling us your thoughts on the ethical issue being discussed, and leave my thoughts as they are, without your smear upon them.
My hypotheticals are an extension of the ethical issues pondered in the article being discussed.
Since we are talking about something that may occur in the future, that would be next to impossible. That is exactly why it is being discussed now. Except by those who’d rather shut the discussion down with tricks rather than have it.
I’m calling you out on this repeated fear shaming. You did it to me, you did to RMc, you did it to me again. You have, in fact, been doing this for years; it’s a cheap trick and I see right through it. Claim someone has a fear, then shame them for it and use that as a foundation to take their argument down with it. There is no fear here. We are discussing an ethical dilemma and how to handle a possible future. Will it happen? History teaches us that depth of human depravity has no bounds — thus, I posit that it sure as f*ck could, and what goes on around us today is no measure of what the future may bring.
Oh, good God, human! I’m not going to do any of those things. You are, but stating the above paragraph, acting as if I’ve been discussing the issue of abortion itself, and then first implying (instead of asking) what my goal would be on something I never brought up, and then telling what I should do to meet this goal I never stated, on a subject I never brought up.
This is a discussion about the ethics of using abortion as a form of eugenics. Nothing more, nothing less. This was never a discussion about abortion itself. I would no more bring up the abortion debate itself in the Davis Vanguard than I would bring up the topic around the Thanksgiving table. Might as well stuff the turkey with human feces.
So, apparently you feel this isn’t going to be a widespread problem. That’s all you needed to say.
I think this is an important question, Alan, and one that any discussion of how eugenics or eugenics-adjacent practices are carried out in the future must tackle. The ethics of “selective abortion based on trait” is a very tough issue, and I’m not sure that I have a good answer to how we should think about it. But, if we allow the limit case of a selective abortion because of a severe, debilitating illness then we clearly think that selective abortion is acceptable sometimes. The question, of course, becomes when? I just want us to be able to have these conversations without being tied to the moral and historical baggage that comes with the term “eugenics.” I think this can only hold us back.
I don’t want to weigh in on much of the rest of what’s being said in this comment thread, but I find this phrase quite perplexing. “Being Jewish” is not a genetic trait. Judaism is a religion, and if you convert into it nothing changes about your genetic makeup. There are, for historical and cultural reasons, certain genetic traits which are more common in many modern Jewish communities, and perhaps this is what you’re referring to?
JD, I appreciate the discussion. I actually hadn’t thought much about selective abortion until this article, and was troubled by the implications. I tried to weave around the abortion issue trap, but it’s such a sensitive issue that was like dancing on a thin mineral crust over a Yellowstone hot spring. I appreciate that you are willing to discuss intense issues without getting huffy.
On the Jewish thing here I know that in a literal sense that is silly, so don’t take my argument literally. I was more taking the issue to it’s extreme and where it has taken us in the past, were such a indicator possible (obviously a person doesn’t choose Jewishness in the womb). The difference here lies in the fact that in the Nazi case, there was an attempt at government control of what human traits continue and what are terminated.
Selective abortion on the start of the spectrum could be looked at as preventing the birth of a suffering human being if the defect is extreme . . . but very quickly could turn to choosing not to birth an inconvenient life for the parents, and if a society doesn’t like certain traits, could through collective insanity, lead to traits being snuffed out, duplicating the direction if not the mass intensity of Nazi genocide eugenics, or if say female babies went out of style then you end up with a male-dominated society mirroring what China experienced after girl babies were “out of fashion” (i.e. killed).
Yet, it takes “two to tango”… a fetus has the DNA of two people… if a child is brought to term, the ‘sperm donor’ is often obliged for child support… yet, current thought is they have ‘no skin in the game’… if woman decides to abort, man has no say… even though it has part of his DNA (or ‘body’)… if woman decides to carry to term, man has little say as to being obligated to financial and other support… “pro-choice”… one-sided…
Eugenics has a shameful history, not only the in Nazi Germany, but also throughout Europe and the U.S. The Berkeley Eugenics Fund was established in 1960 “for the primary purpose of improvement of the human race through research and education in the field of eugenics.” The application of eugenics at the time was based on bad science with a primary focus on explaining differences between races in such things as educational performance, IQ scores, and economic circumstances as being genetic and therefore immutable rather than explaining such differences as being the result of centuries of racism and disparate treatment. Anyone understanding the origins and history of eugenics would not contend that there is any such thing as “positive eugenics.” I don’t know what research the Berkeley Eugenics Fund does, but the fact that it still uses the anachronistic and disreputable term Eugenics in its name raises doubts as to whether it is engaged in wholly benign, “positive” endeavors.
Ya THINK ???!??? It’s almost as though they purposefully painted a big read bullseye on the side of the Eugenics Building (Adolf Hitler Hall?) painted “Lob a Titan Missile Here” under the bullseye, and bent over.
Hello Eric.
I think you’re misunderstanding the term “positive” in this context. It doesn’t mean “good” or “morally praiseworthy” but “additive.” It means attempting to promote certain traits rather than stopping people with “undesirable traits” from reproducing.
Such as . . . Aryan . . . traits?
As I explained in the article, the Nazis were mostly focused on coercive, negative eugenics.
It would clearly be unethical and illogical to promote racial traits.
If it helps in any way to clarify my intentions here, I happen to be Jewish. That shouldn’t be relevant to the force of my arguments, but if you’re implying that I’m in favor of Nazi eugenics then just realize that it would be a pretty foolish thing for me to say, even if all I cared about were my own self-interests.
I wasn’t implying anything. I just say stuff.
AKA, “profiling”… defining ‘racial traits’ is the first step onto the slippery slope…
Unless of course, you are talking susceptibility to genetic diseases… Tay-Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, CF, instantly come to mind… those aren’t so much ‘racial traits’, but rather racial susceptabilities…
I don’t want to get into a discussion about what that phrase might mean, because it’s a moral minefield, but it’s sufficient that some people believe that it means something. The Nazis believed that blonde hair and blue eyes were Aryan traits. This induced some of Mengele’s more horrific experiments. Even if the belief is mistaken it has motivational force.
This is why we have to avoid trying to promote racial traits, however that phrase is defined.
Not necessarily “racial” at all. Tay Sachs is common among Ashkenazi Jews, but also among other tight-knit groups—e.g., French Canadian and Louisiana Cajun communities. Sickle cell isn’t prevalent among Blacks in other parts of the world. The problem with eugenics, historically, has been its focus on racial differences and the presumed genetic superiority of one race over the other.
I note (although I fervently oppose eugenics, as commonly referred to) the same ‘technology’ could potentially be used to prevent Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, Down Syndrome, CF, etc.
Gene treatments are a two-edged sword… some potenially very good, some horrific… the modern equivalent of Pandora’s box? Open it, or permanently close it?
Already there are markers that can be used to determine genetic “flaws”… including race/gender, congentital diseases, etc. Main current ‘treatments’ include abortion, and in the not so distant past, forced sterilizations… just a new chapter in “the Brave New World”…
Two-edged sword… goes to ‘who wields the sword’, and how…