Genetic Discrimination Based on Testing for “harmful” Genes
Genetic Discrimination Based on Testing for “harmful” Genes
Genetic Discrimination Based on Testing For “Harmful” Genes
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The goals have been to create healthier, more intelligent people, lessen human suffering and save societys resources. Sir Frances Galton, introduced the term “eugenics”, and is regarded as the founder of the modern science eugenics (Bennett). Earlier means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding while more modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in-vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Critics argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on or is a pseudoscience. In the past, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and severe human rights violations, such as forced sterilization (e.g. of those perceived to have mental or social defects) and even genocide. However, eugenics from the very beginning, means many different people. The term has been used to cover everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization. Consequently debate took place in the past, and takes place today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics (Paul 97).
The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definitions of “improvement” of the human gene pool. What is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defector-harmful gene? It is at this point, genetic discrimination becomes a factor. What appears to be a “harmful gene” in one context or environment may not be so in another. This can be the case for genes with a heterozygote advantage, such as sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease, which in their heterozygote form, may offer an advantage against malaria and tuberculosis. Many people can succeed in life with disabilities. Many of the conditions early eugenicists identified as inheritable are currently considered to be at least partially attributed to environmental conditions (Harris).
One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenic ideas (before they were labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell. In 1881, Bell investigated the rate of deafness on Marthas Vineyard, Massachusetts; from this, he concluded that deafness was hereditary in nature and recommended a marriage prohibition against the deaf. Similar to many other early eugenicists, he proposed controlling immigration for the purpose of eugenics and warned that boarding schools for the deaf could possibly be considered as breeding places of a deaf human race (Broberg, Nil-Hansen).
Eugenics was at the roof of the 1927 Buck vs. Bell case where the state of Virginia could sterilize those they thought unfit. Between 1907 and 1963 the U.S. forcibly sterilized over 64,000 individuals due to “imbeciles.” (Wright 97). Amazingly enough, the United States author and biologist, Paul Popenoe was cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. This led to mass-sterilization (over 45,000 in less that a decade) by citing the U.S. as their inspiration (Tauer).
Beginning in the 1980s, the history and concept of eugenics were widely discussed with the knowledge of genetics advancing significantly. The endeavor of the Human Genome Project made the effective modification of the human species seem possible again. One attempted implementation of a form of eugenics was a “genius sperm bank” (1980-1999) created by Robert K. Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived. James D. Watson, the first director of the Human Genome Project, initiated the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of human genetic engineering. The Human Genome Project clearly supports genetic screening. Behavioral traits often identified as potential targets for modification through human genetic engineering include; intelligence, depression, schizophrenia, alcoholism, sexual behavior and criminality.
Given the complexity of human genetics and culture, there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. It is at the point, genetic discrimination becomes a focal point. Would eugenic manipulations that reduce the propensity for risk-taking and violence, for example, in a population lead to their extinction? The loss of genetic diversity, in which case a culturally accepted improvement of the gene pool may result in biological disaster due to increased vulnerability to disease, reduced ability to adapt to environmental change, and other factors both known and unknown. The Human Genome Project is likely to lead to scenarios similar to this because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition.
In the twenty-first century, the number one ethical issue