eugenics

How to Prevent History from Repeating Itself:
A View from the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future's
Eugenics & Emerging Technologies: Bioethics in the Shadow of Auschwitz?

James Cerami
Research Assistant
Institute of Biotechnology & the Human Future

On November 10, the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future (IBHF) hosted a national symposium on emerging technologies and their eugenic potential. The event brought together experts from the entire spectrum of disciplines and views. Held at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., the presenters and audience engaged in a daylong dialogue on the appropriate application of emerging technologies for the benefit of all humanity.

Why convene to discuss a topic that is "unpopular" at best and even arguably a "taboo" in modern-day political, social, and academic arenas? While the historic face of eugenics manifested in overt, state-sponsored horrors, such as involuntary sterilizations and death camps, today's emerging technologies potentially pose a much more nuanced, but equally invidious, outcome. Specifically, current reproductive and genetic technologies present society in general and parents in particular with a variety of decisions regarding reproductive choices that are accompanied by grave ethically issues and serious social implications.

A Look Back

Sir Francis Galton coined the term "eugenics" in 1865 with the meaning "well born," prior to the discovery of Gregor Mendel's study of genetics and heredity. As a social philosophy, eugenics revolved around the idea that the human race could be improved -- and that suffering could be ended -- through selective breeding. The philosophy consisted of two prongs, which, taken together, would, in theory, result in a smarter, healthier human race. The first, labeled "positive eugenics," was intended to promote the reproduction of "fit" individuals, and the second, "negative eugenics," was intended to discourage breeding by and among the "unfit."

By the early 20th century, the eugenics movement in America had attracted many prominent followers from the fields of science, philosophy, sociology, law, and politics. And, in the United States, eugenic-based notions of "fitness" manifested themselves in discriminatory laws and state-sponsored interventions ranging from immigration bans to marriage restrictions to forced sterilizations. Such actions were condoned in 1927 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Buck v. Bell, in which the high court upheld a Virginia statute allowing sterilization of those deemed "feeble-minded." These American notions then migrated to Nazi Germany, which employed eugenics to justify human experimentation, sterilization, and widespread genocide.

A Look Around

Since the era of death camps, scientific breakthroughs have occurred in the areas of genetics and reproductive technologies. The first "test-tube" baby is set to enjoy her 30th birthday, and, during the three decades since her birth, the human genome has been mapped and reproductive technologies have been expanded to include prenatal genetic screening -- known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Advances such as these have not only allowed an ever-increasing number of people to become parents when it would have otherwise been impossible, but these emerging and converging technologies now allow individuals to select for -- or against -- particular traits in their offspring. Thus, the specter of eugenics rears its ugly head in a modern and subtle manner, driven by individual choices and the marketplace, rather than state action.

Society cannot afford to bury its head in the sand and ignore the issues because "eugenics" has become a politically charged pejorative. Rather, society must grapple with questions, such as: Should we be able to make such trait-specific selections just because we can? Who has access such technologies and at what costs (social and economic)? Who gets to decide which traits should be selected for -- and against -- and on what basis?

These exact issues were the subject of IBHF's symposium, entitled Eugenics & Emerging Technologies: Bioethics in the Shadow of Auschwitz? Opening with a stage-setting introduction by IBHF President Nigel M. de. S. Cameron, Paul Lombardo of Georgia State University delivered the keynote address on the history of eugenics. In response to the keynote, the first panel of experts transitioned from the historical to the modern-day context of eugenic thought as it plays out in society, politics, and human rights. Participants included: moderator Michele Mekel of IBHF; Marsha Darling of Adelphi University and IBHF Fellow; Kevin FitzGerald of Georgetown University and IBHF Fellow; and Ullica Segerstrale of Illinois Institute of Technology and Senior Fellow of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society.

A Look Ahead

The next panel addressed the question: "Will emerging technologies entail a new eugenics?" The participants included: moderator Jaydee Hanson of the International Center for Technology Assessment and IBHF Fellow; Ron Bailey, science correspondent for Reason Magazine; Sujatha Byravan president of the Council for Responsible Genetics; and Cynthia P. Schneider of Georgetown University and former U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands. Moving from present to future, this panel examined how eugenic practices may slip unnoticed -- and unchallenged -- into society. Panelists discussed: current law enforcement policies, such as genetic databases; to whom such information should be available and for what uses; and what level of government protections are and will be necessary to prevent exploitation.

"Is genetics eugenic?" was the question posed to the next group of experts taking the dais. The panel was composed of moderator David Prentice of Family Research Council and IBHF Fellow; Abby Lippman of McGill University and IBHF Fellow; Andrew Imparato of the American Association of People with Disabilities; William Saletan, national correspondent for Slate.com; and Ann Parson, scientific journalist and author. This group focused on the science and technology behind the impending genetics revolution.

The next discussion featured George Khushf of the University of South Carolina, and Charles Rubin of Duquesne University and IBHF Fellow. The two presenters shared views on and concerns about human enhancement, the potential for improving or degrading humanity, and what protocols need to be in place to avert potential problems. In response to this discussion, the next panel, moderated by Judy Norsigian of Our Bodies Ourselves and IBHF Fellow, expounded on the issues that must be addressed and avoided in any efforts to "enhance" what it is to be human. Panelists included: C. Ben Mitchell of Trinity International University and IBHF Fellow; Stuart Newman of New York Medical College and IBHF Fellow; and Susannah Baruch of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at John Hopkins University.

To conclude the conference, IBHF's Nigel Cameron provided context for the themes and issues presented by the diverse expert presenters and raised through audience interaction during the daylong dialogue by placing them in a global framework. Ultimately, society, through active public participation in conversations, such as the one hosted by IBHF at the National Press Club, will have to engage and answer these most difficult of topics in order to reach consensus on how to apply today's and tomorrow's emerging technologies in a sound and thoughtful manner for the benefit and flourishing of humankind.

A webcast of the entire conference proceedings may be accessed on IBHF's website.
see event

James Cerami is a Research Assistant with the Center on Nanotechnology and Society and the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future at Chicago-Kent College of Law/Illinois Institute of Technology. James has a bachelor's of science in integrative biology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and is currently pursuing a J.D. at Chicago-Kent College of Law.