Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 383–394 | Cite as

Ethical questions in the age of the new eugenics

Article
  • 157 Downloads

Abstract

As a result of the publicly funded Human Genome Project (HGP), and an increasing number of private enterprises, a new form of eugenic theory and practice has emerged, differing from previous manifestations. Genetic testing has become a consumer service that may now be purchased at greatly reduced cost. While the old eugenics was pseudoscientific, the new eugenics is firmly based on DNA research. While the old eugenics focused on societal measures against the individual, the new eugenics emphasizes the family as a control agent. Eugenics is now voluntary, with the promise of abortion for those afraid of producing genetically damaged children. The ethical concepts of beneficence, avoidance of maleficence, autonomy, and equity are discussed in terms of aspects of the HGP. One major issue is the need for an ethical system available to health consumers that will empower them and assist in their biogenic decisions.

“The concentration on the genes implicated in cancer is only a special case of a general genomania (emphasis added) that surfaces in ... the weekly announcements in The New York Times of the location of yet another gene for another disease. The revealing rhetoric of this publicity is always the same; only the blanks need to be filled in: ‘It was announced today by scientists at [Harvard, Vanderbilt, Stanford] Medical School that a gene responsible for [some, many, a common form of] [schizophrenia, Alzheimer’s, arteriosclerosis, prostate cancer] has been located and its DNA sequence determined. This exciting research, say scientists, is the first step in what may eventually turn out to be a possible cure for this disease.’”

Lewontin1

Keywords

genetic testing eugenics Human Genome Project ethical decision-making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lewontin, R. (1997, January 9) “Billions and billions of demons”, The New York Review of Books, pp. 28–31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beardsley, T. (1996, March) Vital data. Scientific American, pp. 100–105.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook-Deegan, R.M. (1994) The gene wars: Science, politics, and the human genome, W. W. Norton & Co., New York.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, N.G. (ed.) (1994) The Human Genome Project: Deciphering the blueprint of heredity, University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cranor, C.F. (ed.) (1994) Are genes us?: The social consequences of the new genetics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, T.F. (1991) The Human Genome Project: Cracking the genetic code of life, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levi, T. (1992) A very human adventure: The story and implications of the Human Genome Project, Synchron Associates, England.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loder, B. (1995) The global human genome programme, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wilkie, T. (1994) Perilous knowledge: The Human Genome Project and its implications, The University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robot speeds up mapping of DNA: Scientists predict blueprint by 2001 (1995, December 23), The Globe and Mail, pp. A1, A11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marshall, E. & Pennisi, E. (1996) The Human Genome Project: NIH launches the final push to sequence the genome, Science 272: 188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wiesenthal, D.L. & Wiener, N.I. (1997) Privacy and the Human Genome Project, Ethics and Behavior 6: 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Public Broadcast System (1998) The basics of genetic testing: A question of genes—Inherited Risks. [on-line] http://www.pbs.org/gene/findout3_/.html.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kevles, D. (1986) In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the use of human heredity, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ludmerer, K. M. (1972) Genetics and American society: A historical appraisal, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tucker, W.H. (1994) The science and politics of racial research, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ross, C. (1996) Birth of a notion, The Next City 1: 28–32-, 55–56.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Proctor, R. (1988) Racial hygiene: Medicine under the Nazi, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kitcher, P. (1996). Lives to come: The genetic revolution and human possibilities, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paul, D. (1994) Eugenic anxieties, social realities, and political choices, in: Cranor, C.F. (ed.), Are genes us?: The social consequences of the new genetics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Larson, E.J. (1995) Sex, race and science: Eugenics in the Deep South, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reilly, P.R. (1991) The surgical solution: A history of involuntary sterilization in the United States, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Searle, G.R. (1976) Eugenics and politics in Britain, 1900–1914, Noordhoff International Publishers, Leyden.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Smaglik, P. (1998, June 8) Privatizing the human genome?, The Scientist 12: 1–6, Electronic version, (http://www.the-scientist.library.upenn.edu/yr1998/june/smaglik_p1_980608.html).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (1983) Principles of biomedical ethics, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones, D. (1997, June 15) Betsy Lewthaite’s genetic odyssey, The Globe and Mail, p. D5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Immen, W. (1996, May 7) Experts back genetic testing for cancer, The Globe and Mail, p. A9.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marshall, E. (1996a) Genome researchers take the pledge, Science 272: 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marshall, E. (1996b) Rifkin’s latest target: Genetic testing, Science 272: 1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kolata, G. (1993, December 7) Nightmare or the dream of a new era in genetics, The New York Times, pp. A1, B10.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Behavior geneticists shun colleague (1995) Science 270: 1125.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kakva, G.S. (1994) Upside risks: Social consequences of beneficial biotechnology, in: Cranor, C.F. (ed.), Are genes us?: The social consequences of the new genetics, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wright, R. (1990, July 9) Achilles helix, New Republic, pp. 21–31.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dyson, F. (1997, April 10) Can science be ethical, The New York Review of Books, pp. 46–48.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dunn, K. (1996, December 21) A troubling cure ‘for hereditary disease, The Globe and Mail, p. D6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    McGee, G. (1997) Where human life happens. The Pennsylvania Gazette, June, Electronic edition, (http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0697/babies.html).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.LaMarsh Centre for Research on Violence and Conflict Resolution, 217 York LanesYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations