There has been a lot of comment on the blogosphere about eugenics. From the Right, Ross Douthat here, here & here, from the Left Ezra Klein here, here & here, Kevin Drum here & Henry Farrell here. And from the libertarian angle the Elf here. Since a few of my posts were referenced I added a bit here & here. I think I'm pretty clear about "eugenics," and biological technologies. I'm not a "bio-utopian," but I think the future is coming and we need to grapple with it. I'm not scared of the word eugenics, but accept that the new biological technologies and choices will have a far broader purview than the original eugenics, and of course the term is a non-starter in any case. My attitude is that we have to be pragmatic and need to shy away from grand pronouncements and take things on a case by case basis. For example, here is a story from England, 'Use IVF to create more saviour siblings':
For the first time, couples could use so-called "saviour siblings" to treat other family members suffering the kind of serious but non-fatal ailments that affect millions.Presently the law allows parents to use IVF procedures to select embryos that will be a genetic match to older siblings with life-threatening diseases, such as a rare blood disorder.
But a joint House of Commons and Lords committee today calls for the law to be relaxed to include other illnesses.
This could lead to children being created to help treat diseases such as sickle-cell anaemia, renal failure, kidney disorders and spinal diseases.
So how do you feel about this? That's a much more fruitful and relevant discussion than the historical resonances of the term eugenics.
Related: My posts on eugenics.
Comments
I think that the contemporary discussion about abortion and birth defects is much more complicated than Klein and others characterize it with their assertion that Douthat is simply smearing liberals. Disability activists, certain biomedical policy-focused feminists, and progressive "bio-Luddites" have their own perspectives on abortion and birth defects and related topics. And with insurance and public funding, even individual private decisions are embedded in a network of institutions with their own sets of financial and cultural incentives. And it gets really complicated when people with handicaps want their own children to share those handicaps.
The word "eugenics" has been ahistorically retrofitted to be nearly synonymous with Nazism, making the term radioactive. (As Dawkins recently discovered.) So perhaps it's not particularly useful in these debates.
Posted by: Colugo | August 1, 2007 2:16 PM
Disability activists, certain biomedical policy-focused feminists, and progressive "bio-Luddites" have their own perspectives on abortion and birth defects and related topics.
yes, but they are quantitatively marginalized. i think an analogy with animal rights activists is appropriate.
And with insurance and public funding, even individual private decisions are embedded in a network of institutions with their own sets of financial and cultural incentives. And it gets really complicated when people with handicaps want their own children to share those handicaps.
*nod* i think that like it or not some genetic choices will be sanctioned and protected through gov. fiat (e.g., insurance companies or national health service pays for it no matter if it is cost effective or not), and others will not be given protection, and on some occasion may be legally banned (though enforcement is really difficult on a lot of these things since intent is key).
the word 'eugenics' is probably counter-productive at this point.
Posted by: razib | August 1, 2007 2:48 PM