On a not too distant horizon, advances in human biotechnology may enable us to engineer the specific genetic makeup of our children. Only a few months ago, the headlinemaking Italian doctor Severino Antinori claimed to have implanted cloned embryos in several women. We are already at the stage where we can selectively terminate our offspring if certain genetic criteria are not met. Soon it may be possible to discern, and ultimately select for or against, individual traits in our children.

It is at this juncture that the promise of biotechnology runs head-on into the history and the horrors of eugenics— the quest for biological “improvement” through reproductive control.

At the start of the 20th century, British scientist Francis Galton coined the term eugenics, from the Greek eugenes, for “well-born.” He later distinguished two major kinds of eugenics, positive and negative. “Positive eugenics” was preferential breeding of socalled “superior individuals” in order to improve the genetic stock of the human race. “Negative eugenics” meant discouraging or legally prohibiting reproduction by individuals thought to have “inferior” genes and was to be “achieved by counseling or by sterilization, either voluntary or enforced.”[1] Galton, who was Charles Darwin’s cousin, described eugenics as “the science of improving stock…to give the more suitable races a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”[2] He founded the Eugenics Society in 1907 “to spread eugenic teaching and bring human parenthood under the domination of eugenic ideals.”[3]

A popular social movement in support of such ideals had arisen in the late 19th century in the United States and Europe. This movement reached its zenith in the 1930s, but dissolved following World War II and the disclosure of the horrific eugenic practices of the Nazis. Nonetheless, support for the genetic control of human beings did not disappear, and public endorsement of eugenic ideals continued to surface.

The 1962 Ciba Foundation conference, “Man and His Future,” is a case in point. Conference participants, including many of the leading biotechnology researchers of that time, agreed that molecular biology would allow “mankind” to master evolution. Some argued that genetic modification to encourage “positive” inherited traits could be part of a broader strategy to establish a better future for humanity.[4]

A 1980 report by the European Commission’s Technology Forecasting Office provides another example. The report boldly predicted: “The coming twenty to thirty years will, it is thought, see two major changes: the computerization of society (and)…the biological revolution emanating from the boom of the ‘life technologies.’…Within the relatively near future, biotechnology could be used in a number of sectors: we could control the development of the human embryo, and, perhaps within twenty years, determine its sex. We could prevent certain malfunctions.”[5]

Some of these forecasts have since been realized, and several have been exceeded.[6] Sex determination is not only possible, but in some places it is quite popular— especially in cultures and nations where female children are “less desirable.” Prenatal diagnosis and pre-implantation diagnosis make it possible to “select” certain embryos prior to implanting them in a woman.

Some scientists and philosophers consider such techniques to be an unmistakable reversion to eugenic practices. The trouble, they note, is that the logic of eugenics—the rational management of a population for some “higher end”—is a logic readily amenable to other, far more sinister projects than those envisioned by “racist” and “non-racist” eugenicists, and perhaps by proponents of the new biotechnology. The Holocaust is but one case in point.

Some biotech proponents support these technologies because people are free to choose them or not. The state is not involved. David King, editor of the Londonbased GenEthics News, calls this the emergence of laissez- faire eugenics. Patients are given “non-directive” genetic counseling, or offered opportunities to subject themselves or their potential children to myriad genetic tests, for a host of illnesses. But as King notes, such counseling is “eugenic both in purpose and outcome, since the aim is clearly to reduce the number of births of children with congenital and genetic disorders.” In a 1997 survey published in the Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, researchers found that 13 percent of English geneticists, 50 percent of Eastern and Southern European geneticists, and 100 percent of Chinese and Indian geneticists agreed with the eugenic suggestion that “an important goal of genetic counseling is to reduce the number of deleterious genes in the population.”

These new methods of targeting and eliminating debilitating diseases and various forms of inherited disabilities raise some important ethical concerns. Few would argue against screening embryos for major genetic disorders like Tay Sachs disease. But accepting the logic of eugenics in one context opens the door for justifying more controversial practices: could parents begin to screen embryos for cosmetic traits like eye color? And what about inheritable genetic modification, which would force future generations to live with genetic alterations we determine for them? In addition, targeting and eliminating those that might be born disabled also has deleterious implications for the living. “There is a growing voice in the disability movement arguing that this (type of) genetic research and testing fosters a climate of intolerance toward people with disabilities,” according to the Canada-based Advocacy Group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration (ETC).

A 2001 industry survey in Nature listed 361 biotech firms, more than three-quarters of them based in the United States. These corporations are, by their very nature, guided by their bottom line. And yet, if financial considerations are allowed to drive the development of genetic technologies, we may see a rapid expansion of laissez-faire eugenics.

Already, the industry almost exclusively aims to bolster the health and well being of those who can afford its services, in spite of using tens of millions of dollars in public monies to support basic research. And industry lobby groups work hard to discourage any and all forms of government regulation. In the aftermath of an intense lobbying effort in December 2001, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly (316 votes to 37) against tighter restrictions on genetics and biotechnology.

A global public debate on the social implications of biotechnologies for humanity is urgently overdue. But few individual governments or international agencies have stepped forward to provide leadership for such an effort, and fewer still have called for tighter controls and regulations. The World Health Organization has done little to promote international regulation of biotechnology, despite the fact that two of its four main functions are “to give worldwide guidance in the field of health” and “to develop and transfer appropriate health technology, information, and standards.” The U.N. General Assembly has embarked on a process to obtain a global ban on reproductive human cloning, but its passage is not assured.

Far from halting scientific progress, as some industry groups claim, the imposition of moratoria or bans on a couple of the most dangerous new human genetic technologies could help strengthen the long-term viability of basic and biomedical research by compelling its supporters to more thoroughly consider—and more forthrightly deal with—the social and moral implications of their work.

Footnotes

1 A. Rogers and D. de Bousingen, Bioethics in Europe (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Press, 1995), 17. See also D. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

2 Francis Galton, Inquiries Into Human Faculty and Its Development (London: Macmillan, 1883), 25.

3 ———, Memories of My Life (London: Melhuen Publishers, 1908), 10.

4 G. Wolstenholme, (ed.) Man and His Future (Boston: Little Brown, 1963).

5 Commission of the European Communities, European File. Tomorrow’s Bio-Society. (Brussels: EC Technology Forecasting Office, 1980).

6 Time, January 11, 1999, “Special Issue: The Future of Medicine: The Biotech Century.”