Positive Eugenics Research Articles

Eugenics and the Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom: Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics

Eugenics and the Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom: Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics

中國文化視野中遺傳知識的應用

中國文化視野中遺傳知識的應用

Lionel Penrose, F.R.S. (1898-1972) and eugenics. Part two.

The method of improving the human genetic constitution divides into positive and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics is the policy of encouraging and promoting the procreation of those with socially desirable faculties and abilities. Negative eugenics on the other hand is designed to limit the procreation of those with a poor, disadvantageous genetic constitution which may be transmitted to their offspring. Policy proposals to achieve the aims of positive eugenics included family allowances, grants towards the education of children of able families, counselling, physical and psychological testing, medical examination to facilitate ssortative marriage of desirable parents and banking sperm of outstanding men for insemination of comparable women. These were all vigorously advocated. Fisher stated in a review of an article by Leonard Darwin that Galton's work in fact left no room for doubt that if the methods of the stockyard were applicable to mankind the human race could be improved in any desired direction, within a short historical period, to an extent exceeding existing differences between widely different races. Despite continued vigorous approbation the practical outcome of positive eugenics proposals seems very little in terms, for instance, of government enquiries, formal scientific trials or earnest attempts at practical application.

Editorial

Editorial Genetic Engineering and Our Brave New World Advances in the fields of genetics and molecular biology seem to occur on a daily basis, with particular attention to the Human Genome Project of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, which is involved in the mapping of the approximately 80,000 human genes. The possibilities and implications are breath-taking. For the first time in our existence there is the potential, in the near future, of genetically changing the human "germ line." By altering the composition of sperm and eggs before conception, we may be able to redirect the course of evolution. There have already been significant breakthroughs in the area of hereditary hearing loss. In 1994, Couke and colleagues reported that, by studying a large Indonesian family with many deaf and hearing members, they were able to localize the gene for a specific type of deafness. They then performed chromosomal analysis with two other families and in one family established linkage in the same chromosomal area. Although, to the best of my knowledge , the specific gene has not been isolated, gene mapping studies will ultimately lead to the identification of the gene and determination of its structure and function (Arnos, 1994). Since 1994 advances have been made in several countries, including the United States, Great Britain , Israel, and Italy. Most recently, Steele (1998) reported on research in Great Britain on detection of a gene related to progressive hearing loss, declaring that detection of such a gene could lead to procedures that could repress properties that cause a progressive hearing loss. She concluded that time is running out on progressive hearing loss and that a molecular understanding and intervention strategy may be closer than we think. Steele's projections may or may not be overly optimistic , since there are at least 200 types of hereditary hearing loss. Success is being reported on the more easily identifiable cases. However, there is little doubt that the major portion of the Human Genome Project will be completed within the life-times of most readers. The most obvious application of genetic engineering is in the eradication of human disorders such as diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, and certain types of cancer. Few people would argue with such efforts to reduce human suffering. Within the framework of traditional eugenics this would fall within the domain of "Negative Eugenics," the systematic elimination of undesirable traits. The second application would entail the concept of "Positive Eugenics" to improve the characteristics of the human race. We are all aware of the selective breeding of plants and animals designed to improve or emphasize the characteristics of various species. In the case of human beings, for centuries there have been concerns expressed that the "better" classes in a particular society were being outbred by the "lower" classes. We are also aware of the horrific effects of both kinds of eugenics in Nazi Germany, which combined efforts to breed "pure Aryans" with efforts to destroy entire groups of "Untermenschen"; from Jews and Gypsies to deaf, gay, and retarded individuals. Recent developments are raising serious practical, moral, and ethical issues that will have to be dealt with for generations to come (Moores, 1996). In terms of "negative" genetics — the elimination of undesirable traits — most people would probably agree that elimination of cancer and sickle-cell anemia is desirable. The question is where should it end, where should we draw the line? Rifkin (1998) asks if cancer can be prevented by altering the genetic codes of individuals, why not proceed to less serious "disorders" such as color blindness, dyslexia, obesity, and short stature? If we spend billions on dollars on Rogaine to regrow hair, on psychotropic drugs to alter moods, and on liposuction and chin-tucks, many of us would be ready to use gene therapy to enhance the population . He cites a poll in which 43% of Americans would approve using gene therapy to improve children's physical characteristics. What constitutes an improvement is a moot point. The scope of this editorial and space limitations preclude addressing "genetic enhancement" and the more complex issues of "negative eugenics." I just want to raise a few issues related to genetic hearing loss...

From ‘Positive Eugenics’ to Behavioral Genetics: Psychological Twin Research under Nazism and Since

From ‘Positive Eugenics’ to Behavioral Genetics: Psychological Twin Research under Nazism and Since

The case for cloning

With advances in medical research it would now seem possible apply cloning techniques human and C. Richard Seed of Chicago has announced his intention of proceeding with a pilot scheme implant embryos containing the genes of donor adults into the wombs of surrogate mothers. Because human reproduction has in the past involved a constant intergenerational reassortment of genes, public opinion has been encouraged react against voluntary reproduction by means of cloning on the ground that this would produce exact replicas of living individuals. The validity of this and other objections is discussed in this article, and it is pointed out that such objections also constitute an affront against the dignity of identical twins. A more serious consideration involves the possible reduction of necessary diversity in the gene pool of a population, but this is rejected as irrelevant considering the size of most contemporary human breeding populations, compared with the very small size of hominid demes throughout the major part of human evolutionary history. KEY WORDS: Cloning, bioethics, identical twins, birth control, positive eugenics, intelligence. Following the successful British cloning of Dolly, the sheep, and further achievements in that direction, an agreement was signed by a substantial number of member nations of the Council of Europe in January 1998 which prohibited the cloning of human beings. This followed a call from the French President Jacques Chirac for an international ban on such procedures. In order the dignity and identity of all human beings, the protocol legally bound the nineteen signatories ban any intervention seeking create a human being genetically identical another human being, whether living or Daniel Tarschys, the Council's General Secretary, declared that [I]t is important for Europe solemnly declare its determination defend human dignity against the abuse of scientific techniques. The protocol stipulated that the signatory nations must enact laws that would punish those who violate its terms. The 40-member council, established in 1949 to promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, is not a constituent institution of the European Union, although most of the Union's members are included amongst its 40 member states. The text of the Convention is produced below: ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard the Application of Biology and Medicine, on the Prohibition of Cloning Human Beings The member States of the Council of Europe, the other States and the European Community Signatories this Additional Protocol the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard the Application of Biology and Medicine, Noting scientific developments in the field of mammal cloning, particularly through embryo splitting and nuclear transfer; Mindful of the progress that some cloning techniques themselves may bring scientific knowledge and its medical application; Considering that the cloning of human beings may become a technical possibility; Having noted that embryo splitting may occur naturally and sometimes result in the birth of genetically identical twins; Considering however that the instrumentalisation of human beings through the deliberate creation of genetically identical human beings is contrary human dignity and thus constitutes a misuse of biology and medicine; Considering also the serious difficulties of a medical, psychological and social nature that such a deliberate biomedical practice might imply for all the individuals involved; Considering the purpose of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, in particular the principle mentioned in Article 1 aiming protect the dignity and identity of all human Have agreed as follows: Article 1 1 Any intervention seeking create a human being genetically identical another human being, whether living or dead, is prohibited. …

Eugenics and Roman Catholicism An Encyclical Letter in Context:Casti connubii, December 31, 1930

The ArgumentLittle has been written about religion vis à vis eugenics and, even less on Roman Catholicism and eugenics. A 1930 papal encyclical,Casti connubii, is usually held by historians to have been the official condemnatory view of the Catholic Church on eugenics, and the document is further supposed to have induced the only organized opposition to eugenic legislative efforts in several countries (especially France). In fact, the encyclical was not directly about eugenics but a general statement of the Catholic doctrine on marriage.This article attempts to clarify the issue of a Catholic position on eugenics by re-examining the encyclical itself as well as its contemporaneous reception in Germany and France, where there was a strong Catholic presence.Casti connubiiintroduced a change in the prescribed hierarchy of the aims of marriage when, for the first time, relations between spouses took precedence over procreation. While condemning the means (abortion, sterilization, etc.), the encyclical did not condemn positive eugenics. In the broader context of the history of eugenics, the reception of the encyclical emphasizes the family as the third entity between the individual and society. Eugenics, as a “religious Utopia” of modernity, developed a hegemonic discourse over the family realm. As such it entered into competition with more traditional religious institutions such as the Roman Catholic Church.

The New Eugenics and Medicalized Reproduction

We know today that classical eugenics, of an essentially negative nature, was not only an aggressive and brutal practice but, like its positive counterpart, inefficient as well. In fact, numerous biological, sociological, and psychological events beyond our control arise to prevent the realisation of any eugenic plan. Thus, like all human beings, individuals whose procreation is encouraged by positive eugenics suffer unexpected mutations that are transmitted to their offspring by their gametes. Gene distribution among the gametes at meiosis is the result of an uncontrollable, natural lottery. As an effect of this lottery, positive eugenics could allow the birth of defective babies whereas negative eugenics precludes the birth of normal babies.

Female sexuality, regulation and resistance.

India was the context for this discussion of female sexuality, rigid social norms, women's strategies for resistance, the evolution of norms from colonial India, prostitution, myths, and self-help women's activities. Sexuality is a changing set of ideas, and women have contributed to the redefinition. The biological view without consideration of the sociocultural and historical influences proscribes what is deviant and may be used to reinforce patriarchy and colonialism. Management and control of sexuality has been influenced by class, religion, caste, and ethnicity. During the colonial period, women's sexuality and treatment was challenged by the missionaries. The abolishment of "sati" as a traditional practice was used by the British to expand their rule and control over a wider regional area. Attempts were also made to regulate prostitution as means of protecting the health of the British army. The law requiring registration, examination, and commitment for treatment of prostitutes was not adhered to by the women involved. The notion of mothers as irresponsible came into being about 1900, and encouraged abandonment of traditional child- rearing ways for the Western standard of health and hygiene, and lifestyle. In Bengal, motherhood and mother qoddesses became the symbol of the liberation movement. The maternal role could be strengthened through education. The notion of mother and nationhood was supported by the women's movement in Great Britain and the US through positive eugenics ideas of quality race, which supported the ruling elite of British and Indians. Thus, the high class women were to be protected from early marriage, and encouraged to produce children fit to govern; the poor were to be protected from prostitution and overpopulation. Post colonial ideas about sexuality reflected a number of influences both from within and outside India. Health was a focus, and program targets were those who were outside the norm: women with too many children, homosexuals, and prostitutes. Protests have been made against dowry, rape, violence against women, and against specific contraceptives. Women's groups have challenged beliefs about the polluting aspect of women's sexuality, and linked sexuality with spirituality. Grassroots networks were set up in 1989 to teach self- help.

Distinguishing genetics and eugenics on the basis of fairness.

There is concern that human applications of modern genetic technologies may lead inexorably to eugenic abuse. To prevent such abuse, it is essential to have clear, formal principles as well as algorithms for distinguishing genetics from eugenics. This work identifies essential distinctions between eugenics and genetics in the implied nature of the social contract and the importance ascribed to individual welfare relative to society. Rawls's construction of 'justice as fairness' is used as a model for how a formal systems of ethics can be used to proscribe eugenic practices. Rawls's synthesis can be applied to this problem if it is assumed that in the original condition all individuals are ignorant of their genetic constitution and unwilling to consent to social structures which may constrain their own potential. The principles of fairness applied to genetics requires that genetic interventions be directed at extending individual liberties and be applied to the greatest benefit of individuals with the least advantages. These principles are incompatible with negative eugenics which would further penalize those with genetic disadvantage. These principles limit positive eugenics to those practices which are designed to provide absolute benefit to those individuals with least advantage, are acceptable to its subjects, and further a system of basic equal liberties. This analysis also illustrates how simple deviations from first principles in Rawls's formulation could countenance eugenic applications of genetic technologies.

Female sexuality, regulation and resistance

India was the context for this discussion of female sexuality rigid social norms womens strategies for resistance the evolution of norms from colonial India prostitution myths and self-help womens activities. Sexuality is a changing set of ideas and women have contributed to the redefinition. The biological view without consideration of the sociocultural and historical influences proscribes what is deviant and may be used to reinforce patriarchy and colonialism. Management and control of sexuality has been influenced by class religion caste and ethnicity. During the colonial period womens sexuality and treatment was challenged by the missionaries. The abolishment of sati as a traditional practice was used by the British to expand their rule and control over a wider regional area. Attempts were also made to regulate prostitution as means of protecting the health of the British army. The law requiring registration examination and commitment for treatment of prostitutes was not adhered to by the women involved. The notion of mothers as irresponsible came into being about 1900 and encouraged abandonment of traditional child- rearing ways for the Western standard of health and hygiene and lifestyle. In Bengal motherhood and mother qoddesses became the symbol of the liberation movement. The maternal role could be strengthened through education. The notion of mother and nationhood was supported by the womens movement in Great Britain and the US through positive eugenics ideas of quality race which supported the ruling elite of British and Indians. Thus the high class women were to be protected from early marriage and encouraged to produce children fit to govern; the poor were to be protected from prostitution and overpopulation. Post colonial ideas about sexuality reflected a number of influences both from within and outside India. Health was a focus and program targets were those who were outside the norm: women with too many children homosexuals and prostitutes. Protests have been made against dowry rape violence against women and against specific contraceptives. Womens groups have challenged beliefs about the polluting aspect of womens sexuality and linked sexuality with spirituality. Grassroots networks were set up in 1989 to teach self- help.

The Chinese Race-Nation

The Chinese Race-Nation

Genetic Disorders and the Ethical Status of Germ-Line Gene Therapy

Recombinant DNA technology will soon allow physicians an opportunity to carry out both somatic cell- and germ-line gene therapy. While somatic cell gene therapy raises no new ethical problems, gene therapy of gametes, fertilized eggs or early embryos does raise several novel concerns. The first issue discussed here relates to making a distinction between negative and positive eugenics; the second issue deals with the evolutionary consequences of lost genetic diversity. In distinguishing between positive and negative eugenics, the concept of malady is applied as a definitional criterion for identifying genetic disorders that could qualify for germ-line therapy. Because gene replacement techniques are currently unavailable for humans, and because even if they were possible the number of people involved would be quite small, the loss of diversity concern seems moot. Finally, we discuss the issue of iatrogenic disorders associated with gene therapy and discuss several 'real world considerations.'

Whither Mankind? The Choice Between a Genetic Twilight and a Moral Twilight

SYNOPSIS. The biological evolution of mankind continues at present, even though for the lastfew millennia mankind's mode of adaptation has been primarily cultural. The necessary and sufficient conditions for biological evolution are genetic variability and differential reproduction (natural selection). The genetic variation of human populations is immense: no two individuals developed from different eggs can ever be genetically identical to each other. The two components of natural selection—differential mortality and differential fertility—continue unabated in modern mankind. Cultural changes fuel human biological evolution, which may well be faster now than it has ever been. The genetic endowment of mankind may be deteriorating precisely owing to the advances of modern health care, although this is not occurring as fast as some would have it. The eugenic measures proposed to improve the genetic lot of mankind may be classified into four broad categories: genetic counselling, genetic surgery, germinal selection, and cloning. The first two can be used as measures of negative eugenics, that is, to prevent the spread of harmful gene mutations. The goals of negative eugenics would seem unobjectionable, and so would be their voluntary application; compulsion would violate fundamental human rights. Germinal selection and cloning are primarily proposals for positive eugenics that seek the multiplication of desirable genetic characteristics. Positive eugenic proposals are unacceptable on biological, ethical, and sociopolitical grounds.

War and Peace revisited: Practicing positive eugenics

Genetic loss due to wars and selection of the fit to be placed in the least favorable survival position is examined in a historical and speculative vein. On the basis of advances in genetic technology, a practical positive eugenics paradigm is offered to insure those who will perish in future wars of progeny if they so desire.

The Failure of Himmler's Positive Eugenics

The Failure of Himmler's Positive Eugenics

Eugenics in Britain.

part of this century is an important example of the relationship between scientific ideas and the interests and purposes of social groups. The eugenists possessed a social theory, and a set of social policies, which claimed scientific foundation. Social position, they argued, was largely the result of individual qualities such as mental ability, predisposition to sickness or health, or moral tendency. These qualities were inherited, and thus a rough equation could be drawn between social standing and hereditary worth. On this basis a programme of social action to improve the quality of the population was put forward. Central to this was the alteration of the relative birth-rate (or survival rate) of the 'fit' and 'unfit'. Those with good hereditary qualities should marry with care and have large numbers of children (this came to be called positive eugenics), while those with hereditary disabilities should be discouraged from parenthood (negative eugenics). The eugenists supported schemes of social reform which would, either directly or indirectly, have this effect, while condemning policies which appeared to encourage procreation of the 'unfit'. Thus, they sought to raise the fertility of some groups in society (generally those of higher social status) and lower that of others (those of lowest status). Eugenics was backed by arguments based on commonsense and medical knowledge of heredity, Darwinian biology and, increasingly, specialized scientific research. While largely relying on pre-existing

SOME REFLECTIONS ON POSITIVE EUGENICS.

5OME REFLECTIONS ON POSITIVE EUGENICS CATHERINE ROBERTS, Ph.D.* Man is still very much an unfinished type, who clearly has actualized only a small fraction ofhis human potentialities. . . . Man, infact, is in urgent need offurther improvement.—SirJulian Huxley, Galton Lecture, 1962 [1]. The words quoted above echo a sentiment which has been repeatedly expressed in a variety ofways for more than two millennia and, for all we know, may have been thought or uttered during untold ages before human desires were recorded. For the need ofself-improvement is life's challenge to each succeeding generation, and since an awareness ofthis problem and a desire to solve it seem to be an essential part ofour evolutionary development, we will in all probability ever continue to grope after the answer. For six thousand years the evolutionary progress ofcivilized man was based upon the slow, cumulative transmission ofthe cultural and ideological aspects ofhuman experience; only in the recent past has it become increasingly rapid through the acquisition and transmission of scientific knowledge. Yet any serious consideration ofhuman progress in the Scientific Age reveals that something is amiss. Being aware that our accelerating development during the last four hundred years has been primarily intellectual, and being unable to find the necessary balance and harmony between the realm ofthe intellect and that ofthe spirit, we are for the first time faced with the prospect ofself-annihilation or, perhaps worse still, of regression to a de-humanized state. Passive acceptance ofthe evolutionary concept ofautomatic and perpetual human "progress" no longer suffices in the second halfofthe twentieth century. Reflections on the future of Homo sapiens are required more than ever before. Many proposals for improvement ofthe species were offered to mankind in good faith by the most enlightened minds of the Pre-Scientific * Address: Lyngbakkevej, Holte, Denmark. 297 World and transmitted as part of our heritage. One such proposal, put forward nearly 2,500 years ago in a shockingly dogmatic way by Plato, was revived in a milder form in the nineteenth century when Sir Francis Galton suggested that our physical and mental condition could be best improved by what he termed eugenics, according to which the unfit were discouraged and the fit encouraged to reproduce. The enthusiastic interest which greeted Galton's proposal has continued down to the present. At the same time, advances in genetics, as in nearly all other branches ofscience , have been so explosive that the geneticist, in cooperation with the biologist, the biochemist, and the medical man, is now in a position to elaborate human breeding programs on a scale probably undreamed of by Plato or Galton. Swept along by the triumphant march ofscience and fervently believing in the necessity ofa scientific attack upon all oflife's unexplained aspects, the advocates ofpositive eugenics are vociferous, insistent , and very well-meaning. They sincerely believe that positive eugenics not only affords the greatest hope for man's improvement but that it would also tend to dissipate the perils which confront him. In their enthusiasm for science, they are led to the conclusion that the scientific regulation ofhuman reproduction by artificial means is the most rapid way we can realize our potentialities and that the day must soon come when world opinion will adopt this solution as a moral imperative. With equal sincerity , I believe that to adoptthis way out ofourdifficulties wouldnot only be immoral but would tend to efface our human potentialities. The purpose ofthis paper, which deals primarily with the views expressed in Sir Julian Huxley's Galton Lecture [1], is, therefore, to state my reasons for believing that positive eugenics, as advocated by twentieth-century scientists , would do mankind more harm than good. To avoid ambiguity, it is well to state at the outset that the eugenists' proposals which come under the heading "negative eugenics" and which include reducing man-made radiation and discouraging genetically defective individuals from reproducing as well as the attempt to reduce human overmultiplication—all of these have my deepest sympathy. But let us now turn to positive eugenics and consider it in the broadest possible perspective ^—that ofevolution. Near the conclusion of the Galton Lecture these words occur: "All the objections ofprinciple to a policy ofpositive eugenics...

Selection and Eugenics

W EHEN CHARLES DARWIN pointed out the role that natural selection of certain genetic types has played in the evolution of animal and plant species, it was soon realized that modern man may be subjected to similar selective influences. As a result, two slightly different considerations were advanced, each complementary to the other. One dealt with the changes in natural selection that civilization has brought about. Darwin had stressed the ruthless struggle, in which the genetically less fit has a poorer chance of reproducing his kind than the more fit. Did not civilization reduce or eliminate this selection against the less fit by improving his chance of reproduction through charitable care, or artificial remedies ? Had not an ominous situation been created which would lead to an increase in undesirable genetic constitutions? But to counteract this pessimistic view another possibility fired the imagination toward hopeful perspectives. Could not man take the genetic fate of the species into his own hands ? Could he not be more efficient and successful than nature, and by the use of his knowledge improve the genetic qualities of future generations? Francis Galton coined the word eugenics to cover the whole -study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial [meaning hereditary] qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally. In accordance with its two aspects, the field of eugenics has often been subdivided into two branches, called negative and positive eugenics. The first is concerned with combating the increase or the presence of alleles or of genie combinations producing undesirable phenotypes, the second with furthering the increase of alleles or combinations causing desirable phenotypes, or at least guarding against the decrease of such genotypes. The facts that eugenists use as a basis for the dis-

Positive Eugenic Policy

IN his Galton Lecture, Dr. C. G. Darwin discussed a positive eugenic policy (Eugenical News, 31, No. 1). He pointed out that a eugenic policy could only exist under conditions of civilization. In centuries up to the nineteenth, populations were stationary or increased but slowly. Then wages began to rise or the price of wheat went down, and with it tho mortality rates in infancy and adulthood. It was no longer essential to have a certain level of intelligence in order to stay alive. Natural selection ceases to operate in civilization, and the things on which surpluses shall be spent are determined by advertisements. The relative absence of natural selection inevitably leads to degeneration unless eugenic selection can take its place. As regards negative eugenics, the propagation of mental weakness is much more serious than the transmission of a bodily weakness with a high intellect. As regards positive eugenics, we need not wait for full knowledge of the human genetic constitution, to construct human beings as an engineer constructs a bridge. Quite enough is already known with reasonable probability for immediate eugenic action. Bohr's principle of complementarity, implying a mutual effect of subject and object, comes in here. The need is urgent for a simple national eugenic policy which will induce the better endowed to have larger families, and history will not spare us if we do not set to work at once to carry it out.