New eugenics

Last updated

New eugenics, also known as liberal eugenics (a term coined by bioethicist Nicholas Agar), [1] advocates enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive technology and human genetic engineering. Those who advocate new eugenics generally think selecting or altering embryos should be left to the preferences of parents, rather than forbidden (or left to the preferences of the state). "New" eugenics purports to distinguish itself from the forms of eugenics practiced and advocated in the 20th century, which fell into disrepute after World War II. [2]

Contents

As opposed to historical eugenics

New eugenics is distinguished from previous versions of eugenics by its emphasis on informed parental choice rather than coercive governmental control. [3]

Eugenics is sometimes broken into the categories of positive eugenics (encouraging reproduction among the designated "fit") and negative eugenics (discouraging reproduction among those designated "unfit"). Another distinction is between coercive eugenics and non-coercive eugenics. According to Edwin Black, many positive eugenic programs were advocated and pursued during the early 20th century, but the negative programs were responsible for the compulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of persons in many countries, and were contained in much of the rhetoric of Nazi eugenic policies of racial hygiene and genocide. [4] New eugenics belongs to the positive eugenics category. [5]

Bioethicists generally consider coercive eugenics more difficult to justify than non-coercive eugenics, though coercive laws forbidding cousin marriage, for example, are widely considered justified. Compulsory sterilization of those deemed unfit is a form of coercive eugenics that has been overwhelmingly rejected in the 21st century, [6] and is illegal under many national and international laws.

New eugenics practices

New eugenics generally supports genetic modification or genetic selection of individuals for traits that are supposed to improve human welfare. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic basis of future generations and reduce incidence of genetic diseases and other undesirable traits. Some of the practices included in new eugenics are: pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection, [7] selective breeding, [8] and human enhancement through the use of genetic technologies, [9] such as embryo engineering or gene therapy. [10] [11]

Ethical status

New eugenics was founded under the liberal ethical values of pluralism, which advocates for the respect of personal autonomy, and egalitarianism, which represents the idea of equality for all people. Arguments used in favor of new eugenics include that it is in the best interest of society that life succeeds rather than fail, and that it is acceptable to ensure that progeny has a chance of achieving this success. [11] Ethical arguments against new eugenics include the claim that creating designer babies is not in the best interest of society as it might create a breach between genetically modified individuals and natural individuals. [12] Additionally, some of these technologies might be economically restrictive further increasing the socio-economical gap. [8]

Dov Fox, a law professor at the University of San Diego, argues that liberal eugenics cannot be justified on the basis of the underlying liberal theory which inspires its name. Instead he favors traditional, coersive eugenics, arguing that reprogenetic technologies like embryo selection, cellular surgery, and human genetic engineering, which aim to enhance general purpose traits in offspring, are not practices a liberal government leaves to the discretion of parents, but practices the state makes compulsory. [13] Fox argues that if the liberal commitment to autonomy is important enough for the state to mandate childrearing practices such as health care and basic education, that very same interest is important enough for the state to mandate safe, effective, and functionally integrated genetic practices that act on analogous all-purpose traits such as resistance to disease and general cognitive functioning. He concludes that the liberal case for compulsory eugenics is a reductio ad absurdum against liberal theory. [13]

The United Nations International Bioethics Committee wrote that new eugenics should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements. They have also stated the notion is nevertheless problematic as it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new ways of discrimination and stigmatization against those who do not want or cannot afford the enhancements. [14]

Procreative beneficence

This section is an excerpt from Julian Savulescu § Procreative beneficence.[ edit ]

Savulescu coined the phrase procreative beneficence. It is the controversial [15] [16] [ vague ] moral obligation, rather than mere permission, of parents in a position to select their children, for instance through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and subsequent embryo selection or selective termination, to favor those expected to have the best possible life. [17] [18] [19]

An argument[ vague ] in favor of this principle is that traits (such as empathy, memory, etc.) are "all-purpose means" in the sense of being instrumental in realizing whatever life plans the child may come to have. [20]

Philosopher Walter Veit has argued that because there is no intrinsic moral difference between "creating" and "choosing" a life, eugenics becomes a natural consequence of procreative beneficence. [15] Similar positions were also taken by John Harris, Robert Ranisch and Ben Saunders respectively. [21] [22] [23]

Beyond the therapy-enhancement distinction

This section is an excerpt from Philosophy of medicine § Demarcating therapy.[ edit ]

Self-described opponents of historical eugenics first and foremost, [lower-alpha 1] are known to insist on a particularly stringent treatment-enhancement distinction (sometimes also called divide or gap). This distinction, naturally, "draws a line between services or interventions meant to prevent or cure (or otherwise ameliorate) conditions that we view as diseases or disabilities and interventions that improve a condition that we view as a normal function or feature of members of our species". [26] And yet the adequacy of such a dichotomy is highly contested in modern scholarly bioethics. One simple counterargument is that it has already long been ignored throughout various contemporary fields of scientific study and practice such as "preventive medicine, palliative care, obstetrics, sports medicine, plastic surgery, contraceptive devices, fertility treatments, cosmetic dental procedures, and much else". [27] This is one way of conducting ostensively what has been coined the "moral continuum argument" by some of its critics. [28] [lower-alpha 2]

Granting these assertions' validity, one may, once more, call this first and foremost a moral collapse of the therapy–enhancement distinction. Without such a clear divide, restorative medicine and exploratory eugenics also invariably become harder to distinguish; [lower-alpha 3] and accordingly might one explain the matter's relevance to ongoing transhumanist discourse.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Examples include George W. Bush affiliated chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, the perennial bioconservative Leon Kass [24] and communitarian philosopher Michael Sandel. [25]
  2. ↑ Invoking Bostrom and Roache once more, [29] Hofmann explicates here:
    Some forms of assistive reproduction previously seen as enhancement are now considered to be treatments. This vagueness in therapy is mirrored in the classification of interventions. Vaccination can be seen as a form of prevention, but also as an enhancement of the immune system. To distinguish between laser eye surgery and contact lenses or glasses appears artificial. [30]
  3. ↑ More impactful yet:
    Because a flexible definition of health relates to a flexible definition of the disabled, any attempt to prohibit access to enhancement technology can be challenged as a violation of disability rights. Presented this way, disability rights are the gateway for the application of transhumanism. Any attempt to identify a moral or natural hazard associated with enhancement technology must also include some limitation of disability rights, which seems to go against the entire direction of human rights legislation over the last century. [31]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Effort to improve purported human genetic quality

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have altered various human gene frequencies by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups purported to be inferior or promoting that of those purported to be superior.

Bioethics is both a field of study and professional practice, interested in ethical issues related to health, including those emerging from advances in biology, medicine, and technologies. It proposes the discussion about moral discernment in society and it is often related to medical policy and practice, but also to broader questions as environment, well-being and public health. Bioethics is concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, theology and philosophy. It includes the study of values relating to primary care, other branches of medicine, ethical education in science, animal, and environmental ethics, and public health.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nick Bostrom</span> Philosopher and writer (born 1973)

Nick Bostrom is a philosopher known for his work on existential risk, the anthropic principle, human enhancement ethics, whole brain emulation, superintelligence risks, and the reversal test. He was the founding director of the now dissolved Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford and is now Principal Researcher at the Macrostrategy Research Initiative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preimplantation genetic diagnosis</span> Genetic profiling of embryos prior to implantation

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is the genetic profiling of embryos prior to implantation, and sometimes even of oocytes prior to fertilization. PGD is considered in a similar fashion to prenatal diagnosis. When used to screen for a specific genetic disease, its main advantage is that it avoids selective abortion, as the method makes it highly likely that the baby will be free of the disease under consideration. PGD thus is an adjunct to assisted reproductive technology, and requires in vitro fertilization (IVF) to obtain oocytes or embryos for evaluation. Embryos are generally obtained through blastomere or blastocyst biopsy. The latter technique has proved to be less deleterious for the embryo, therefore it is advisable to perform the biopsy around day 5 or 6 of development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human genetic enhancement</span> Technologies to genetically improve human bodies

Human genetic enhancement or human genetic engineering refers to human enhancement by means of a genetic modification. This could be done in order to cure diseases, prevent the possibility of getting a particular disease, to improve athlete performance in sporting events, or to change physical appearance, metabolism, and even improve physical capabilities and mental faculties such as memory and intelligence. These genetic enhancements may or may not be done in such a way that the change is heritable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Designer baby</span> Genetically modified human embryo

A designer baby is a baby whose genetic makeup has been selected or altered, often to exclude a particular gene or to remove genes associated with disease. This process usually involves analysing a wide range of human embryos to identify genes associated with particular diseases and characteristics, and selecting embryos that have the desired genetic makeup; a process known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Screening for single genes is commonly practiced, and polygenic screening is offered by a few companies. Other methods by which a baby's genetic information can be altered involve directly editing the genome before birth, which is not routinely performed and only one instance of this is known to have occurred as of 2019, where Chinese twins Lulu and Nana were edited as embryos, causing widespread criticism.

Human enhancement is the natural, artificial, or technological alteration of the human body in order to enhance physical or mental capabilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julian Savulescu</span> Australian philosopher and bioethicist

Julian Savulescu is an Australian philosopher and bioethicist of Romanian origins. He is Chen Su Lan Centennial Professor in Medical Ethics and director of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics at National University of Singapore. He was previously Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, Fellow of St Cross College, Oxford, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and co-director of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities. He is visiting professorial fellow in Biomedical Ethics at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Australia, and distinguished visiting professor in law at Melbourne University since 2017. He directs the Biomedical Ethics Research Group and is a member of the Centre for Ethics of Pediatric Genomics in Australia. He is a former editor and current board member of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is ranked as the No.2 journal in bioethics worldwide by Google Scholar Metrics, as of 2022. In addition to his background in applied ethics and philosophy, he also has a background in medicine and neuroscience and completed his MBBS (Hons) and BMedSc at Monash University, graduating top of his class with 18 of 19 final year prizes in Medicine. He edits the Oxford University Press book series, the Uehiro Series in Practical Ethics.

Playing God refers to assuming powers of decision, intervention, or control metaphorically reserved to God. Acts described as playing God may include, for example, deciding who should live or die in a situation where not everyone can be saved, the use and development of biotechnologies such as synthetic biology, and in vitro fertilisation. Usually the expression is used pejoratively and to criticize or argue against the supposedly God-like actions.

In bioethics, the ethics of cloning concerns the ethical positions on the practice and possibilities of cloning, especially of humans. While many of these views are religious in origin, some of the questions raised are faced by secular perspectives as well. Perspectives on human cloning are theoretical, as human therapeutic and reproductive cloning are not commercially used; animals are currently cloned in laboratories and in livestock production.

A savior baby,savior sibling, or donor baby is a child who is conceived in order to provide a stem cell transplant to a sibling that is affected with a fatal disease, such as cancer or Fanconi anemia, that can best be treated by hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">I. Glenn Cohen</span>

I. Glenn Cohen is a Canadian legal scholar and professor at Harvard Law School. He is also the director of Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics.

David DeGrazia is an American moral philosopher specializing in bioethics and animal ethics. He is Professor of Philosophy at George Washington University, where he has taught since 1989, and the author or editor of several books on ethics, including Taking Animals Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status (1996), Human Identity and Bioethics (2005), and Creation Ethics: Reproduction, Genetics, and Quality of Life (2012).

The nonidentity problem in population ethics is the problem that an act may still be wrong even if it is not wrong for anyone. More precisely, the nonidentity problem is the inability to simultaneously hold the following beliefs: (1) a person-affecting view; (2) bringing someone into existence whose life is worth living, albeit flawed, is not "bad for" that person; (3) some acts of bringing someone into existence are wrong even if they are not bad for someone. Rivka Weinberg has used the nonidentity problem to study the ethics of reproduction.

Human germline engineering is the process by which the genome of an individual is edited in such a way that the change is heritable. This is achieved by altering the genes of the germ cells, which then mature into genetically modified eggs and sperm. For safety, ethical, and social reasons, there is broad agreement among the scientific community and the public that germline editing for reproduction is a red line that should not be crossed at this point in time. There are differing public sentiments, however, on whether it may be performed in the future depending on whether the intent would be therapeutic or non-therapeutic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">S. Matthew Liao</span> Taiwanese-born American philosopher

S. Matthew Liao is an American philosopher specializing in bioethics and normative ethics. He is internationally known for his work on topics including children’s rights and human rights, novel reproductive technologies, neuroethics, and the ethics of artificial intelligence. Liao currently holds the Arthur Zitrin Chair of Bioethics, and is the Director of the Center for Bioethics and Affiliated Professor in the Department of Philosophy at New York University. He has previously held appointments at Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, and Princeton.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetic diagnosis of intersex</span>

Intersex people are born with natural variations in physical and sex characteristics including those of the chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis allows the elimination of embryos and fetuses with intersex traits and thus has an impact on discrimination against intersex people.

Bioconservatism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes caution and restraint in the use of biotechnologies, particularly those involving genetic manipulation and human enhancement. The term "bioconservatism" is a portmanteau of the words biology and conservatism.

Moral enhancement, also called moral bioenhancement, is the use of biomedical technology to morally improve individuals. MBE is a growing topic in neuroethics, a field developing the ethics of neuroscience as well as the neuroscience of ethics. After Thomas Douglas introduced the concept of MBE in 2008, its merits have been widely debated in academic bioethics literature. Since then, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu have been among the most vocal MBE supporters. Much of the debate over MBE has focused on Persson and Savulescu's 2012 book in support of it, Unfit for the Future? The Need for Moral Enhancement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vardit Ravitsky</span> Bioethicist, researcher, and author

Vardit Ravitsky is a bioethicist, researcher, and author. She is president and CEO of The Hastings Center, a full professor at the University of Montreal, and a senior lecturer on Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. She is immediate-past president and current vice-president of the International Association of Bioethics, and the director of Ethics and Health at the Center for Research on Ethics. She is a Fellow of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, where she chaired the COVID-19 Impact Committee. She is also Fellow of The Hastings Center and of the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences.

References

  1. ↑ Agar N (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. ISBN   1-4051-2390-7.
  2. ↑ Goering, Sara (2 July 2014). "Eugenics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014.
  3. ↑ Cavaliere, Giuli (2018). "Looking into the shadow: the eugenics argument in debates on reproductive technologies and practices". Monash Bioethics Review. 36 (1–4): 1–22. doi: 10.1007/s40592-018-0086-x . PMC   6336759 . PMID   30535862.
  4. ↑ Black E (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race . Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN   1-56858-258-7. OCLC   1035882630.
  5. ↑ Witzany G (March 2016). "No time to waste on the road to a liberal eugenics?". EMBO Reports. 17 (3): 281. doi:10.15252/embr.201541855. PMC   4772985 . PMID   26882552.
  6. ↑ Buchanan A (2011). Better than Human: The Prospect and Perils of Enhancing Ourselves. p. 123. ISBN   978-0-19-066404-6. OCLC   759685982.
  7. ↑ King, D. S. (1999-04-01). "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the 'new' eugenics". Journal of Medical Ethics. 25 (2): 176–182. doi:10.1136/jme.25.2.176. ISSN   0306-6800. PMC   479204 . PMID   10226925.
  8. 1 2 Hoffman, Allison K (2017-12-01). "Review of The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies". Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 4 (3): 671–7. doi:10.1093/jlb/lsx025. ISSN   2053-9711. PMC   5965496 .
  9. ↑ Vizcarrondo, Felipe E. (August 2014). "Human Enhancement: The New Eugenics". The Linacre Quarterly. 81 (3): 239–243. doi:10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000021. ISSN   0024-3639. PMC   4135459 . PMID   25249705.
  10. ↑ King DS (April 1999). "Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the 'new' eugenics". Journal of Medical Ethics. 25 (2): 176–82. doi:10.1136/jme.25.2.176. PMC   479204 . PMID   10226925.
  11. 1 2 "Regulating Eugenics". Harvard Law Review. 2008. Retrieved May 2, 2015.
  12. ↑ Galton, DJ (2005-01-01). "Eugenics: some lessons from the past". Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 10: 133–6. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62222-5. ISSN   1472-6483. PMID   15820025.
  13. 1 2 Fox D (2007). "The Illiberality of Liberal Eugenics". Ratio. SSRN   1072104.
  14. ↑ International Bioethics Committee (October 2, 2015). "Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights" (PDF). UNESCO. OCLC   932076434 . Retrieved October 22, 2015. The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case.
  15. 1 2 Veit, Walter (2018). "Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement". Kriterion . 32 (11): 75–92. doi:10.1515/krt-2018-320105.
  16. ↑ de Melo-Martin I (2004). "On our obligation to select the best children: a reply to Savulescu". Bioethics. 18 (1): 72–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2004.00379.x. PMID   15168699.
  17. ↑ Savulescu, Julian (October 2001). "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children". Bioethics. 15 (5–6): 413–26. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00251. PMID   12058767.
  18. ↑ Savulescu, Julian; Kahane, Guy (2009). "The Moral Obligation to Have Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life" (PDF). Bioethics. 23 (5): 274–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00687.x. PMID   19076124. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 February 2021.
  19. ↑ Savulescu, Julian (2005). "New breeds of humans: the moral obligation to enhance". Reproductive Biomedicine Online. 10 (1): 36–39. doi:10.1016/s1472-6483(10)62202-x. PMID   15820005.
  20. ↑ Hens, K.; Dondorp, W.; Handyside, A. H.; Harper, J.; Newson, A. J.; Pennings, G.; Rehmann-Sutter, C.; De Wert, G. (2013). "Dynamics and ethics of comprehensive preimplantation genetic testing: A review of the challenges". Human Reproduction Update . 19 (4): 366–75. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt009 . hdl: 2123/12262 . PMID   23466750.
  21. ↑ Harris, John (2009). "Enhancements are a Moral Obligation". In Savulescu, J.; Bostrom, N. (eds.). Human Enhancement. Oxford University Press. pp. 131–154.
  22. ↑ Ranisch, Robert (2022). "Procreative Beneficence and Genome Editing". The American Journal of Bioethics . 22 (9): 20–22. doi:10.1080/15265161.2022.2105435. PMID   36040888.
  23. ↑ Saunders, Ben (2015). "Why Procreative Preferences May be Moral — And Why it May not Matter if They Aren't". Bioethics. 29 (7): 499–506. doi:10.1111/bioe.12147. PMID   25655693.
  24. ↑ Kass, Leon (2003). Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. New York: Harper Perennial
  25. ↑ Sandel, Michael (2009). The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, p.47
  26. ↑ Daniels, Norman (July 2000). "Normal Functioning and the Treatment-Enhancement Distinction". Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics . 9 (3): 309. doi:10.1017/S0963180100903037. ISSN   0963-1801. PMID   10858880.
  27. ↑ Bostrom, Nick; Roache, Rebecca (2008). "Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement". In Ryberg, Jesper; Petersen, Thomas; Wolf, Clark (eds.). New Waves in Applied Ethics (PDF). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 120–152 – via nickbostrom.com.
  28. ↑ Malmqvist, Erik (2014-02-01). "Reproductive Choice, Enhancement, and the Moral Continuum Argument". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy . 39 (1): 43. doi:10.1093/jmp/jht058. ISSN   0360-5310. PMID   24334271.
  29. ↑ Bostrom N, Roache R. "Ethical issues in human enhancement" In: New waves in applied ethics; 2008. p. 120–52.
  30. ↑ Hofmann, Bjørn (2017). “Limits to human enhancement: nature, disease, therapy or betterment?” BMC Med Ethics 10;18(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0215-8. PMID: 29017486; PMCID: PMC5635529. p. 5
  31. ↑ Tabachnick, David (2017). "The Blurred Line Between Therapy and Enhancement: A Consideration of Disability Rights and Transhumanism" 2017 Proceedings of the CPSA, abstract

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.