While Gould focuses on more on the historical manifestations of eugenics, such as Social Darwinism theories, phrenology, misuse of IQ tests etc. Duster focuses more on contemporary issues of eugenics. Primarily, he focuses on genetics and how ideas of hereditary behavior influenced contemporary science and society. Contrary to popular belief the elements of the idea of hereditary behavior can be found all the way back to the 15th century probably even earlier. At that time the inquisition based their executions on the principle of "limprezza de sangre" purity of blood. This meant that one could get killed based on who their ancestors were.
|Published (Last):||25 July 2012|
|PDF File Size:||13.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.43 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
For the first time a parts list of all the genetic bits that are responsible for the human being and that parts list gives us the possibility to think about revolutionary new medicines for preventative and predictive, so the public has to be educated about and will have to make conscious decisions about privacy questions of engineering of the germ line questions of genes that control the human behaviour.
Naturally we are curious about what we are as human beings. There many reasons people afraid. Now that is an abandonment of the rule of law. New life has even been created in a test tube. The first human clone seems only a matter of time, so to the ability to genetically modify humans. At the moment all the talk is about how inheritable disease genes can be identified. But in the future, we may be able to enhance ourselves genetically, give ourselves a little boost - a few extra IQ points or even blue eyes.
Some say we should be honest and call this new science by its real name. Dan Wikler was formerly senior ethicist at the World Health Organisation. Just starting with intelligence say. There will certainly be some traits; no one has any difficulty admitting physical traits like height are strongly influenced by genes obviously. So once we have these choices and these powers and the idea that people will simply sit there and not use them is not credible.
What we are talking about here is eugenics of the future. The genetic engineering powers that science is now offering us. For some people eugenics it literally means action on behalf of the state to regulate the gene pool. And this backdoor eugenics that Duster wrote about is something is a kind of pattern that emerges not from any dictators decision or central government decision but from the cumulative effect of many individuals decisions that are not thinking about the gene pool, the point is that individuals are just thinking what kind of baby do I want.
But when you put all those choices together in a limited period of time in a single country you have an effect on the gene pool and so you get eugenics through the back door.
Everyone realises that the new technology comes with big ethical dilemmas. Soon we may be able to test for intelligence, musicality, and deviance. But we can already identify spina bifida, muscular disorders, cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, dwarfism, cleft palette, even twisted feet.
And with that knowledge comes the choice about whether to continue with the pregnancy Dr Andrew McLennan is a consulting obstetrician and gynaecologist with a large private practice in Sydney. Because there are a number of ways you can screen for down syndrome, the most efficient.
Can see the head face and looking up through its hand there. Every baby has that fluid, but babies with Down Syndrom tend to have problems with their hearts or the blood flow to the head and neck so they collect more fluid in that space.
The bigger the fluid measurement the higher the risk for a chromosome problem. A minute drop of blood, saliva or a single hair determines where you can work, who you should marry..
The purpose of this program is not to argue against the right to have an abortion. But we are failing to confront the fact that scientific change is now moving at such a pace that designer babies are just around the corner. And she says our ideas about ideas of the monstrous and of human deformity have always been shaped by scientific change. Whereas this one here is about conjoined twins and kind of interestingly talks about they grow displeased and melancholy at seeing themselves so repugnant to everyone, so their life is broef.
This is an Interesting one from a Doctor - again of conjoined twins with two heads - and this doctor was quite happy to say this monster was in his house and kept as a museum piece. And this was reflected in what was happening in medicine and science. Particularly corporeal difference. Mark Frankel has just written a report on the ethical, social, legal and theological implications of human genetic modification for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
What was the sort of cultural feeling about people of difference at that time? How were they viewed by the other people in that artistic community?
And they were kind of framed within the sort of context of the sideshow and the theme park and all that sort of thing. But the new genetic technologies have the potential to change all that. These new choices are about what kind of baby, not whether abortion is legal.
Women only have abortions because they want to preserve their figures. Today I really think the terms of the debate have shifted to the sorts of things Beatrice just mentioned which are more ethical Questions about abortion. Now that the right to abortion has been established in law, what we really need to be talking about now is how that right should be exercised.
Not in terms of telling people what choices they should make but of changing a little bit the context. If we find genes for intelligence, for musical ability, for eye colour, should people be able to have choices based on those kinds of results?
I think the business of people going for eye colour is a bit of a beat up in real life. James Watson who discovered the DNA is saying these things are going to be possible. Do you think it should be permissible to choose a child on genetic qualities, non-medical qualities as well as medical. Why should the rich be foolish and the poor not allowed to be foolish. Perhaps Chris or Helen?
But one could argue that type of choice has nothing to do with feminism. So people involved in IVF and perhaps people who get involved in Pre-implantation diagnosis those are a smaller group who are and may continue to use those technologies. And therefore I tentatively suppose that it should be all right until I see what kind of decisions they make and how they go about making them.
The questions - a lot of them are very tongue in cheek but they are basically like how people would answer questions about abnormality and how they would. They started to look at the genetics of this family they found a mutation on the X chromosome of those males who engaged in the behaviour. Now when they looked further they found an abnormality in one of the genes, which codes for one of the enzymes in the brain.
And there was a plausible story of a link between this genetic abnormality and the violent behaviour. Now here we have a clear cut example of a non disease gene which is resulting in a certain kind of social behaviour that people would generally agree is undesirable both for society and the individual and a gene which the family themselves is concerned about.
Of course if it was the case that everyone in the society was choosing genetically identical children that would be a terrible thing, and yes at that point we should intervene in the freedom of choice if for some reason it was that severe and likewise we had genes for height, as plausibly we will be able to in the future.
That he or she will be stronger, more athletic, intelligent, whatever the case might be. Or to have greater expectations than are warranted because of what you think that child will turn out to be. The first question is what should we permit and the second one is what should we enable. Suppose that someone does discover a gene that creates a child who is taller or more intelligent or beautiful or more musical for that matter, ah should this be part of the national health plan?
The parents who have the means are certainly going to rush out and avail themselves of it. Some parents who have the means and place enough importance on having these wonderful traits in their children will forgo the natural ways of having children and will have a child which is sort of born in the test tube on the condition of being assured they are going to have a spectacular child. Some sci fiction oriented scientists are saying what we have is a real risk here.
There are several ways to address this. One would be to abandon this kind of advantage seeking behaviour. And so to make these opportunities available to other people.
Exactly, yes. What then are we to make of these issues? Here in Australia the Australian Law Reform Commission is examining the legal issues associated with human genetic engineering.
Mark Frankel again. This is science that has not been tested in any clinical trial so every infertile couple that goes in for some of these procedures is in a sense is a human research subject. The governing bodies within the government the federal Drug Administration and our National Institute of Health have reasserted their authority over this technology and are making whatever effort they can to constrain the applications of this tech in private sector to the extent the law allows them to do so.
What they can do in certain circumstances is try to exercise quality control and oversight but they have no authority to ban. In Australia, experimentation in human genetics is funded by government and governed by medical ethics bodies. Dr Andrew McLennan. Is eugenics a useful term when we are talking about the future of reproductive diagnostic technologies?
You know half the wheat we eat has been mucked around with significantly bits and pieces of things pulled out of it and put into it to improve it. Now you know the whole food genetics thing is a precursor to what we will have in medicine. And this was a very succinct statement of a central biblical theme. He was implying that you cannot live fully if the only thing you are living for is yourself. And the diseases of conceit are a familiar notion from the biblical tradition that goes along with its partner diseases of hubris, idolatry and faithlessness.
And at the same time as this yearning for spirit is very evident in the music - and I can hear it everywhere - there is a parallel universe where emotion and yearning and spirit are completely absent.
Where its claimed that mystic values are of no worth at all. This is the universe where the laboratory rules. As the writer Jeremy Rifkin puts it: That the laboratory conceives genesis. And this is in the offing as the new technologies of genetic engineering manifest themselves in a way that the science fiction that described them as very dull and unimaginative.
Unlike our response to the environment or to the drug problem our responses to technology and genetic manipulation has been largely muted. And yet the future will be irreversibly determined by our responses, our now responses. All of those relationships are subject to the most powerful technology imaginable. Man now consciously gets to play god and the old faiths are challenged as never before. Let me quote: Dr Robert Sinsheimer eminent molecular biologist. At its core the new technologies when they deal with reproduction when they expressly allow for the eliminating or altering of genetic characteristics at the level of procreation is a new variant of eugenics.
And as you know eugenics is defined as the science of improving the qualities of the human race. The same mission that the Third Reich was committed to and which in any form inevitably involves an arbitrary selection of certain kinds of people of certain characteristics - short people, disabled people, Jewish people, outspoken people who must be remade and remodelled to the desirability of the scientists who have the technology.
Production this week: Ann-Marie Debettencor. Explore Radio National.
The Genomic Revolution and Beliefs about Essential Racial Differences: A Backdoor to Eugenics?
For the first time a parts list of all the genetic bits that are responsible for the human being and that parts list gives us the possibility to think about revolutionary new medicines for preventative and predictive, so the public has to be educated about and will have to make conscious decisions about privacy questions of engineering of the germ line questions of genes that control the human behaviour. Naturally we are curious about what we are as human beings. There many reasons people afraid. Now that is an abandonment of the rule of law.
Backdoor to Eugenics
Abstract Could the explosion of genetic research in recent decades affect our conceptions of race? In Backdoor to Eugenics, Duster argues that reports of specific racial differences in genetic bases of disease, in part because they are presented as objective facts whose social implications are not readily apparent, may heighten public belief in more pervasive racial differences. We tested this hypothesis with a multi-method study. A content analysis showed that news articles discussing racial differences in genetic bases of disease increased significantly between and and were significantly less likely than non—health-related articles about race and genetics to discuss social implications. A survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample of adults found that a news-story vignette reporting a specific racial difference in genetic risk for heart attacks the Backdoor Vignette produced significantly greater belief in essential racial differences than did a vignette portraying race as a social construction or a no-vignette condition. The Backdoor Vignette produced beliefs in essential racial differences that were virtually identical to those produced by a vignette portraying race as a genetic reality. These results suggest that an unintended consequence of the genomic revolution may be the reinvigoration of age-old beliefs in essential racial differences.
Backdoor to eugenics
History[ edit ] We put down mad dogs; we kill the wild, untamed ox; we use the knife on sick sheep to stop their infecting the flock; we destroy abnormal offspring at birth; children, too, if they are born weak or deformed, we drown. Yet this is not the work of anger, but of reason — to separate the sound from the worthless. In the early years of ancient Rome , a Roman father was obliged by law to immediately kill his child if they were physically disabled. Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory. Many of the early geneticists were not Darwinians, and evolution theory was not needed for eugenics policies based on genetic determinism. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals. Though influential, the book was largely ignored when it first appeared, and it went through several revisions and editions.