Download Werzowa Camille Werzowa Dr. Hersey VTPH 300 A 3/18/15

Werzowa 1
Camille Werzowa
Dr. Hersey
VTPH 300 A
3/18/15
Eugenics: Morally Right or Detrimental to Our Survival?
Eugenics has been present and influencing our society for over 100 years. The term was
first coined by Francis Galton, a British natural scientist, in 1883 (Wilson 1), deriving it from the
Greek word meaning well born (Bergman 10). Galton was heavily influenced by Charles Darwin’s
theory of natural selection, which led him to desire a society that would allow “the more suitable
races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable” (Wilson 1).
By World War I, the ideology had become popular, and many leaders and scientists supported its
application. However, it became exceedingly condemned as a science after the Nazis used eugenics
to defend their attempt to eradicate an entire race in the 1930’s and 1940’s (Wilson 1). Though
over the years, eugenics has become increasingly criticized, I will discuss the science and
arguments behind eugenics to, ultimately, answer the question: is eugenics morally right?
Moreover, would it truly help society advance, or would it hinder us instead?
Though eugenics has been present since the time of early philosophers, like Plato (Smith
6), it became most popular after Galton proposed that, between women of riches and men of merit,
a system of arranged marriages would create an exceptional race in Hereditary Genius (1869)
(Wilson 1). These ideas were supported when Gregor Mendel, a geneticist, discovered that
physical traits were transferred from one generation to the next through the combination of two
units, later called genes. This provided scientific evidence to support the idea of selective breeding
in order to form “better” or superior humans (Smith 7). Then, with Darwin’s theory, eugenics was
further reinforced by the belief that humans can control their own evolution by means of selective
Werzowa 2
reproduction (Wilson 1). There were not only ideas of positive eugenics, where they “encourag[ed]
‘fit’ families to reproduce” (“Regulating Eugenics” 1580), but also negative eugenics, where they
“discourage[ed] the ‘unfit’ from procreating” (“Regulating Eugenics” 1580). It was thought that
“nature was far more contributory than nurture in shaping humanity” (Wilson 1). With these ideas,
Galton set a goal to remove the “inferior stock” (Bergman 16) from the breeding pool in order to
create a superior race.
In 1907, twenty-nine states passed obligatory sterilization laws to those seen as “unfit.”
Most of the states kept these laws until 1956, and over 60,000 Americans were sterilized
(“Regulating Eugenics” 1580). States were also allowed “to sterilize a prisoner when [the state]
deemed sterilization to be in the prisoner’s and society’s best interests” (“Regulating Eugenics”
1580-1581), after the Buck vs. Bell case in 1927. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld
the statute allowing the sterilization of inmates committed in state institutions who “have a
hereditary form of insanity or imbecility” (Smith 14). It is unclear how many states retain this
regulation today. However, in 2014 the State of California was accused of forcing the sterilization
39 female inmates (Giri 1). The laws in the past were imposed without determining if forced
sterilization by the state violated prisoner’s “substantive due process rights” (“Regulating
Eugenics” 1581). This was then fused with the Immigration Act of 1924, which removed
immigrants who were seen as undesirable and of “inferior lineage” (“Regulating Eugenics” 1581).
Eugenics in the early 1900s was based on this “faux scientific language” (“Regulating Eugenics”
1582), and was “motivated more by racism, classism, and colonial subjugation than by any real
concern for genetic fitness” (“Regulating Eugenics” 1582).
Another important figure in the eugenics movement was Karl Pearson, a mathematician
who helped create the statistical aspects of biology called biometry (Bergman 30). He believed
Werzowa 3
that the birth rate of the lower class was a threat to society and that the “superior” races needed to
replace the undesirable ones in order to create superior people. In his eyes, mental and emotional
qualities were not influenced by the environment, but instead were hereditary traits (Wilson 2).
His ideas were supported by those who believed in racial and class superiority.
The United States gained power and status at the end of World War I. The American people
soon began to fear the dilution of their “healthy stock” (Wilson 2) with undesirable traits, which
would destroy the country’s political and economic power. With the help of several American
leaders in government, business, education, and publishing, congressional hearings were held in
order to discover the problems caused by immigrants, showing that particularly those from Italy,
Greece, and Eastern Europe were those put in prisons and admitted to institutions for the
“feebleminded” (Wilson 2). This term was widely used for those thought to be inferior genetically
and socially. Many started “systems of training of mental defectives” (Stevens 190), as well as
studies to “attack upon the problem of feeblemindedness” (Stevens 190) in order to help prevent
and cure its presence in society. These people included “alcoholic[s], [the] insane, or [those]
dependent upon charity” (Stevens 191), as well as those with physical disabilities, diseases, health
ailments, or those who are criminalistics (Wilson 2). Soon most in America believed that the only
“prevention of feeblemindedness” (Stevens 191) was by sterilization. They argued that if the
flawed stocks were not able to spread their “defective germ cells, [then they would] have laid [an]
axe at the very root of the evil” (Stevens 191).
In 1927, the eugenics movement began to decline. Studies had shown that
“feeblemindedness was not a direct consequence of Mendelian ratios” (Smith 8). Many court
hearings challenged the unconstitutional act of sterilization when it was decided that it was “a
violation of the due process of laws guarantee[d by] the Consitution” (Smith 8). It was recognized
Werzowa 4
“that the sterilizations were cruel and unusual punishment[s]” (Smith 8). The consequences of the
Nazis’ ideology also contributed to the increasing distaste and concern towards supporting the
eugenic movement. The Nazis took America’s views and applied it to their campaign to reduce
the presence of those thought of as inferior, whether it be socially or genetically, through
involuntary sterilization (Wilson 3). This quickly developed into harsher practices in efforts to
eradicate the Jewish, the gypsies, and anyone else seen as inferior. After these events, Americans
soon started to realize that eugenics was an incorrect practice.
After World War II, many scientists who were once for eugenics now spoke against it,
commenting that it was a failed pseudoscience. Many organizations removed the term “eugenics”
from their title, such as Britain’s Annals of Eugenics being renamed Annals of Human Genetics in
1954 (Wilson 3). No one wanted to be associated with the now offensive movement. In 1973, after
the U.S. Senate revealed how many individuals were sterilized, the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare encouraged every state to abolish their respective sterilization laws
(Wilson 3). However, there are still some countries today that “support eugenics-directed programs
openly in order to ensure the genetic makeup of their future” (Wilson 3), like China for example.
Positive and negative eugenics can still be found today in our society. Such things as
amniocentesis, where a small sample of cells are obtained from the placenta in order to determine
if the fetus has any genetic disorders, or genetic screening and counselling programs are examples
of negative eugenics (Smith 912). In both cases, parents are informed on the possible “inferior”
traits or disorders that their child will, or already, possess. This allows the option for an abortion
if they chose to eliminate the “defective” child (“Regulating Eugenics” 1587). It has been
estimated that, in Australia, the abortion of children with disabilities saves an average of $500,000
per person in a lifetime (Smith 18). Therefore, many use this argument to support this practice.
Werzowa 5
Artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and embryo implants, and asexual reproduction,
meaning cloning and parthenogenesis, or “virgin birth” (Smith 21), are examples of positive
eugenics. For these cases, humans decide the sperm or egg donor that possesses the most
“superior” traits or the fertilized egg that is most viable and better (Smith 1823). The parents or
doctors can choose the genes that will be propagated in society, as well as which ones will not.
This ability allows them to “perfect” individuals who will be brought into this world. Though this
may seem good for society, it is also detrimental to our ability to evolve and adapt to our
environment. When different traits for one gene begin to be cut out, this provides us with less
genetic diversity. When all individuals are almost identical, meaning genetic diversity is low, then
as soon as “a new environmental pressure, such as a disease, comes along, all of the individuals
within the population may get the disease and die” (“Conservation Genetics” 5). Without a variety
of traits, then the population has less of a chance to adapt to the environmental pressure and
survive.
The idea of “designer babies” appearing is also causing many problems for genetic
diversity, among other things. Genetically engineering one’s fetus is slowly becoming popular;
however, it remains highly controversial. Many argue that just as it is their right to raise their child
as they please, it is their constitutional right to engineer their child as they please (“Regulating
Eugenics” 1588). This argument may be valid, but it is not sound. Eugenics is an immoral practice
that violates a person’s rights. The government cannot allow others to decide the genetic makeup
of future generations. They are bypassing nature, which has worked very well thus far, and can
cause irreversible damage to our ability to adapt and survive in our continuously changing
environment. Eugenics does not help move society forward, but instead causes it to take a few
steps back.
Werzowa 6
Eugenics is a very appealing ideology, especially to those who believe in a superior race
or breed of human beings. Many scientists in the early twentieth century published articles that
claimed that eugenics would improve our society and allow us to become smarter and better human
beings. Though this may seem appealing, especially when mental illness has been slowly rising in
the U.S. (Latham 1), this practice is unethical and overall senseless. By instilling eugenics in any
society, you are stripping people of their rights to live and reproduce, which are two major human
rights (Smith 17).
No country can claim that they are a democracy while supporting eugenics. According to
the Merriam-Webster dictionary, democracy is a government where all of the power is vested in
the people and there is “the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges”
(Democracy 5). This means that the government is made for the people, by the people. Eugenics
does not fit into this type of government. The mandatory sterilization and extermination of a certain
race or type of person is not aimed at the benefit of the people. Instead, it is detrimental and an
overall terrible idea demonstrated in a couple of ways.
First, you are taking away some people’s fundamental human rights. There are multitudes
of articles published in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, but I
will only focus on the first seven articles. All human beings are born with equal rights and should
be treated the same (UN 1). No one is above the law (UN 7), and everyone is entitled to the same
rights and subject to the same laws set in the Declaration, no matter who you are and where you
come from (UN 2; 6). Finally, “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (UN
3), and “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment” (UN 5). Eugenics seems to go directly against all of these articles. By having
someone powerful deciding who is worthy of proliferating his or her “superior” genes cannot
Werzowa 7
warrant that everyone is equal. This mentality drills the idea that there is a hierarchy within the
human population, where those who have illnesses or negative problems are considered inferior.
On the other end of the spectrum, those who have a higher intelligence are adored and praised for
their “good genes.” This is degrading and unjust to those whom many state should not reproduce.
Eugenics is an unhealthy mentality that puts down hard working citizens, and brings us back to a
time where blacks were thought to be inferior. If the practice is applied, how can we know that
something similar to slavery would not be introduced since one group of people would clearly be
seen as inferior to the rest? Eugenics strips people of their human rights, which would lead them
to be seen as less than human.
On top of this, the idea of designing your own baby is terrifying. It makes a little sense the
desire to create your ideal baby in order to remove debilitating and time-consuming mental
illnesses, which also require a large input of money for the appropriate care of the child. However,
if this becomes legal, where would it end? How could we draw the line concerning what is or is
not appropriate? If the parents can change one thing on their child, then this sets up the argument
that they should and can change anything else they want. I am sure there would be limits. For
example, anything that is not a human characteristic, like a tail or webbed feet, would most likely
be forbidden. However, these limits would not stop some families from completely remaking their
child’s genetics. This would lead to parents playing God by designing their child, instead of leaving
it up to nature. This would lead to a shrink in the amount of traits and characteristics in our gene
pool.
This leads us to our next major point that, though it may seem like it is for the common
good, eugenics would actually destroy our biodiversity, as well as our adaptability to changes in
our environment. In the end, this would lower our ability to survive in nature. It does not seem like
Werzowa 8
an important issue to be concerned about, especially with the growing populations in cities and
urban areas, however we still must rely on a large variety of genes in case of disastrous events,
which would led to a need to adapt. We thrive on our diversity in different areas, from skin color
to metabolism. Some genetic diseases inhibit human beings from flourishing, however without
these mutations we would not evolve and create new traits for each gene. We need the possibility
for mutations to improve and to have different characteristics to “choose” from when faced with
an environmental issue. Without this, we would be weak and vulnerable. Genetic diversity has
always aided us to proliferate and led us to where we are now. Therefore, though eugenics may
help eliminate the “bad” genes, it would cause us more harm than good concerning our ability to
adapt to our environment.
However, one can bring up an objection that in our society today there is no need for a
stockpile of different genes to adapt to a change in our environment. As technology moves forward,
we have slowly been mastering how to control the area we live in to meet our needs and desires.
Many now live in desert and arid locations that would normally not be ideal to live in. Human
beings have managed to make these areas livable. This means that even if there was a change in
the environment that would normally force species to adapt, human beings do not need to rely
solely on their genetics to survive. They could use the technology they have created to tailor a
specific living community that allows them to live and flourish in their new setting.
Though this may be true, there is still the problem of a lack of genetic diversity. Taking out
designer babies from the equation, the use of forceful sterilization and regulated breeding to ensure
the proliferation of “superior” genes would eventual lead to more genetic problems. A perfect
example for this phenomenon is the royal Egyptian family. They were known to marry within the
family “because of the ancient belief that the god Osiris married his sister Iris to keep their
Werzowa 9
bloodline pure” (Impact 1). They believed that they came from gods, and so the only way to keep
their bloodline pure and free of ungodly blood was to marry one another. This led to many genetic
defects and stillbirths within the family (Impact 6). King Tut had a number of genetic problems,
including a degenerative bone disease that caused his deformed foot, a cleft palate, a curved spine,
as well as inflammation and an unhealthy immune system (Impact 6). This was caused by the
inbreeding in his family. When genes are constantly recycled within a family, without the
introduction of new genes, then genetic mutations do not leave the family. This is a significant
problem in the case of recessive diseases, which need two copies of a gene for the characteristics
of the disease to appear. Normally, the chance of two individuals that carry an allele for the same
recessive disease is rare (Young 58). However, when the two individuals are from the same family,
those chances increase drastically (Young 59). This is because the genes are kept from generation
to generation, which means that the offspring are more likely to receive two copies of the recessive
disorder than if their parents did not inbreed. Therefore, reducing our gene pool through
sterilization and influenced breeding would harm our well-being and our ability to flourish.
Another objection is that intelligence is hereditary (Van Court 2), and those who are
producing more children have a lower education and intelligence (Van Court 4). This means “we
are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation” (Van Court 4) to the point where
“our civilization will invariably decline” (Van Court 5). Many studies have shown evidence to
support the claim that intelligence is hereditary. When twins were separated at birth, they had
similar IQs despite having grown up in different settings (Van Court 2). This is also seen with
adopted children where their IQ more closely resembled the IQ of their biological parents than
their adoptive parents (Van Court 2). Our society depends on the intelligence of the participants
because “the higher the level of civilization, the better off the population” (Van Court 3). So, if
Werzowa 10
those with lower intelligence are the ones who create more offspring, then our societies will
become progressively less intelligent. This would lead to the decline of civilization (Van Court 1).
If eugenics were applied, this problem would not occur. The controlled breeding of those with less
intelligence would allow any powerful system to impede their rapid growth. This allows those with
intelligence to continue breeding without the fear of being overwhelmed by those who are
“inferior” to them. Then, with this practice, the advancement of our society can continue, and there
would be no need to worry about its decline.
However, it has also been shown that heredity is not the only factor in intelligence. The
environment, such as early intervention, nutrition, formal schooling and toxic substances, the child
grows up in can also play a huge role in their intelligence (McDevitt 9). If we revisit the twin and
adoption studies, they provide evidence that suggests that heredity is not the only factor to their
IQs. There is a visible drop in IQ similarity between twins raised in the same household to those
raised in separate settings (McDevitt 10). This suggests that different environments can influence
your intelligence. Then, there was still a 15-point increase in IQ scores when adoptive children
from poor families were adopted by middle-class, and higher IQ scoring, parents (McDevitt 11).
Though not drastic, this change in scores provides with evidence that there is indeed an
environmental factor, which could be a multitude of things. This then weakens the argument meant
for eugenics in order to breed intelligent human beings since intelligence is not only hereditary,
but also environmental.
Therefore, it has been shown that eugenics is a terrible and borderline evil practice.
Founded by Francis Galton in 1883, eugenics has stirred many controversial subjects and has led
to the overwhelming sterilization of “feebleminded” (Wilson 2), as well as the holocaust. Though
it may seem like an excellent idea to help better our society, it is in fact detrimental to the human
Werzowa 11
rights of those affected and to our genetic diversity. Eugenics infringes upon a multitude of rights
that every human being has, according to the United Nations. By stripping some of these rights
through sterilization or other elements of eugenics, then they are enforcing the idea that those
people are not human beings because they are not allowed the same rights as everyone else. On
top of that, the more traits are removed from a gene pool then the more disadvantageous it is to a
population. They are removing a diversity that would be useful to humans in case of an
environmental change that requires a population to adapt to its new surroundings. The lack of new
genes mixing between generations also leads to a higher amount of recessive hereditary diseases.
In the end, eugenics is not a practice that should be applied. The idea is appealing since we, as
human beings, want to improve and create better versions of ourselves. However, the
consequences outweigh the appeal, and it is our duty to stay away from eugenics and its harmful
effect on society.
Werzowa 12
Sources Cited
Bergman, Jerry. “A History of the Eugenics Movement.” Investigator 72 (2000): n. pag. May 2000.
Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
“Conservation Genetics.” Conservation Genetics. University of Utah, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
"Democracy." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.
Giri, Nathan. “California to Investigate Illegal Sterilization of Female Inmates.” Time. Time, 19
June 2014. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
“Impact of Royal Inbreeding: Part III.” Grey Matter. The Medical Bag, 5 June 2014. Web. 12 Apr.
2015.
Latham, Tyger. “Mental Illness on the Rise in the U.S.” Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, 18
May 2011. Web. 12 Apr. 2015.
McDevitt, T. M., and J. E. Ormrod. “Effects of Heredity and Environment on
Intelligence.” Education. Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall, 20 July 2010. Web. 12 Apr.
2015.
“Regulating Eugenics.” Harvard Law Review 121.6 (2008): 15781599. EBSCOhost. Web. 24
Feb 2015.
Smith II, George P. “Eugenics and Family Planning: Exploring the Yin and the Yang.” CUA Law
Scholarship Repository (1984): 424. Web. 24 Feb 2015.
Stevens, H.C. “Eugenics and Feeblemindedness.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 6.2
(1915): 190197. Web. 24 Feb 2015.
Werzowa 13
United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” The United Nations. N.p., n.d.
Web. 12 Apr. 2015.
Van Court, Marian. “The Case for Eugenics in a Nutshell.” The Occidental Quarterly. N.p.
(2004):110. Web. 24 Feb 2015.
Wilson, Philip K. “Eugenics | Genetics.” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia
Britannica, 20 Mar. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
Young, Ian D. “Consanguinity.” Introduction to Risk Calculation in Genetic Counseling. N.p.:
Oxford UP, 2006. 58-59. Print.