This article examines the relationship between genetic engineering and eugenics, and argues that genetic engineering should be limited to treating disease. It argues for strict government regulation and parental choice to maximize the positive potential of genetic engineering while minimizing ethical issues and social disruption.
As genetic engineering has become more advanced, criticisms and debates about genetic engineering and eugenics have grown. Those who see the promise of genetic engineering as a way to eliminate disease and increase human longevity view it positively. They argue that genetic engineering is a tool that can greatly improve the quality of human life. On the other hand, those who see the social disruption and ethical issues it will cause as outweighing its promise are opposed. They worry that genetic engineering oversteps the moral boundaries of humanity and could threaten human life and identity.
In between these two positions, I am basically opposed to genetic engineering based on the ethical issues, social disruption, and potential discrimination it would cause, but on the other hand, I believe that we cannot ignore the positive possibilities it could bring. For example, the possibility of preventing or curing fatal genetic diseases through genetic engineering is obviously very appealing. If such technology can prolong life and improve quality of life, then ruling it out completely raises other moral issues. Therefore, I argue that genetic engineering should be allowed on a limited basis, weighing the pros and cons. In the following, I will examine genetic engineering from the perspective of eugenics and suggest how we can reduce this debate by introducing limited genetic engineering.
Eugenics is a branch of applied genetics that studies different genetic factors and traits for the purpose of genetically improving the human race. Eugenics as applied to humans was founded by F. Galton in 1883, and all conditions and factors related to the occurrence of people with physical and mental defects are studied in order to increase the population with superior genetic aptitudes. In this case, good genetic aptitude is defined as the absence of physical or mental defects. Based on this, eugenics legislation was proposed and partially implemented in several countries in the 20th century to improve human genetic characteristics, including forced sterilization of alcoholics and the mentally ill, and discriminatory birth control. Although these laws have since been overturned as discriminatory, the advent of genetic engineering has brought eugenics back to the forefront. Most people have an immediate reaction when they hear the word “eugenics,” and this instinctive aversion to eugenics can be traced back to the Nazi eugenics program in Germany.
The extreme eugenics policies implemented during the Nazi era in Germany are a prime example of human rights violations. The Nazis implemented the Lebensborn program under the idea that only the best humans should produce offspring. Their idea of the best bloodline was the Aryan race, which was tall, blond, and blue-eyed. The best of these, in the Nazis’ view, were the Scandinavian races, and their goal was to create a pure Nordic race of Germans. To this end, the Nazis established the Lebensborn Foundation in Germany and Norway, and encouraged women of approved Aryan descent to bear children. As a Social Darwinist, Hitler also celebrated struggle and competition for survival, which led to the extermination of Jews who were deemed to have inferior genetics under Nazi standards. Social Darwinism is a theory that applies Darwin’s theory of biological evolution to sociology and views competition for survival as a fundamental driver of socialization. Social Darwinism assumed that evolutionary competition occurs not only between individuals but also between groups, and that brutal struggle is the only survival strategy. Many people are repulsed by eugenics because of the brutality of the Nazis’ Lebensborn program, which was carried out in the name of eugenics. However, the Nazis’ selection of the best human beings was based on external factors, and it cannot be said that these programs were based on objective scientific evidence. Therefore, the Nazi eugenics program was nothing more than racism justified under the perspective of eugenics.
To prevent this misuse of eugenics, it is necessary to define the concept of eugenics more clearly. In the 1930s, there was a movement to defend eugenics among Anglo-American biologists, led by British biologists J.B.S. Haldane and Julian Huxley and American biologist Herbert S. Jennings, who argued that eugenics should be free of social biases related to race, class, and gender, and that eugenics should be scientifically based on human genetics. As we’ve seen, past eugenics was not based on science, but rather used eugenic concepts to justify social prejudice. Today, a new, scientifically based form of eugenics has emerged, and it is closely linked to genetic engineering.
The emergence of genetic engineering has sparked a new debate that differs from the eugenics of the past. Whereas eugenics in the past aimed to genetically improve the human race, modern genetic engineering focuses on the treatment and prevention of individual diseases. Despite these differences, however, there are important connections between the two concepts. In particular, there is still the possibility that genetic engineering could be used to create humans with superior genetic traits, beyond its role as a tool to treat incurable diseases. Therefore, it is essential to discuss how this technology will be used. I believe that genetic engineering should be limited to treating diseases such as inherited or terminal illnesses. Most of the arguments against genetic engineering involve the creation of humans with superior genetic traits (tall stature, good looks, good physical fitness, high intelligence, etc. Their argument is that if only individuals with superior genetic aptitudes are cloned or reproduced, social discrimination will increase, genetically superior individuals will become the dominant class and control the world, causing social chaos, and the unique identity, human rights, and genetic diversity of humans will be lost. So, if we limit the use of genetic engineering to eliminating diseases in fetuses with genetic disorders, we can reduce these objections.
However, once this technology is developed, there may be a greed to develop individuals with superior genetic predispositions, as opponents of genetic engineering fear. To prevent this from happening, I believe that governments in all countries need to strengthen regulations at the national level. Governments should only provide information about a child’s disease to pregnant couples if they want it, and let them choose whether to seek treatment for the child’s disease. Two cases illustrate why this is important. In one case, a man named Dominic Lawson refused prenatal testing, calling it “tantamount to the government assisting in the destruction of a viable, sentient fetus,” and his daughter was born with Down syndrome, a genetic disorder. He was happy that his daughter was born with a genetic disorder, but not with prenatal testing. In contrast, a couple’s child was born with EB, an incurable genetic disease. Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) is a deficiency of essential fiber that causes blisters to form on the skin at the mere touch of anything, which then develop into inflammation that doesn’t heal, leaving ugly scars. The child lived only 12 weeks and was in pain the entire time, so the couple decided to have a second child, knowing that prenatal testing could have prevented the birth. These two cases illustrate that genetic engineering and eugenics can be viewed differently depending on the individual’s situation and personal beliefs. Therefore, the government should allow the couple to choose the investigation and treatment of their child’s disease.
In conclusion, I believe that the concept of eugenics and genetic engineering should not be utilized to increase the number of individuals with superior genetic factors, but only to treat diseases such as incurable and hereditary diseases with poor genetic factors. To this end, we propose that governments should only offer prenatal testing to parents of children if they choose to do so, so that they can be informed about their child’s disease and make treatment choices. Strict government regulation is also essential to ensure that these technologies are used only where they are needed. It should be strictly scrutinized and regulated to ensure that it is not being used to increase the number of good genes. This limited use will allow us to take full advantage of the positive aspects of genetic engineering while minimizing the ethical issues and social disruption that it can cause. If we can develop the technology in a way that bridges the gap between the proponents and the opponents, it could bring great benefits to humanity.
