Technological eugenics

In my last post, I’ve discussed the more cultural aspect of eugenics, where I’ve explained that it’s already present in society through cultural norms and access to reproductive technology. This type of eugenics is, in my sense, the one that is closest to Galton’s idea of it, where “society” or the government should decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn’t. This is a more authoritarian vision of eugenics because restricts an individual’s access to reproduction. On the other hand, there can be a more individualistic approach to selective reproduction, and it would in my sense be much more respectful of people individual’s rights. An individualistic vision of Galton’s eugenics wouldn’t be very practical, given that It would simply come down to individual people choosing on their own if their genetic material is worthy of being passed down and then for them to choose the best possible genetic partner if they deem themselves worthy to create a  “better” next generation. I could certainly see a community of eugenic enthusiasts doing that, but I don’t believe it would be so different from what already happens when we choose our reproductive partners without necessarily having genetics in mind but still choosing people we find attractive based on desirable traits.

The one technology that turns the tables on individual eugenics is the possibility for genetic screening and embryo selection.  To put it simply, it is the idea that through in vitro fertilization, where multiple embryos are created, it would be possible to genetically test the embryos in order to get their genotypes, from which genes for desirable traits could be selected for or where the presence of genes for undesired traits could be selected against. This idea is usually demonized by the general public, with the typical scenario that people would all want a white blond boy with blue eyes. I believe this example to be a bit unfounded, in the sense that first, skin color is almost necessarily a combination of both parents; therefore, the only way to select against it would be to select the parent, which is something that hasn’t much to do with embryo selection. Second, I honestly have a hard time figuring out how it would be bad to have more blond hair or blue eyes in the next generation aside from an unfounded fear for the commodification of children’s traits, something that already exists when people select their partners in function of their appearance. In the end the only aspect of this scenario that I can imagine becoming a problem is if people start selecting abusively in favor of boys, something that is already happening with selective abortion and that is creating big society problems. However, I believe that the simplest way to prevent it would be to prevent by law geneticists from disclosing gender whenever the genotype is being analysed.

Outside from these critics, this type of eugenics would certainly be a good way to screen for genetic afflictions and to select against them before they become a problem. Sure, one might question the practical elimination of disabled people that it could entail, but unless it were to become mandatory to select against disability, it would still be possible for disabled people to have disabled children, if only by not using embryo selection at all. Considering that my vision of transhumanism is one where it would give more freedom to people, I believe it would be immoral to force it down on anyone. That being said, it would allow parents to be less stressed out about the possibility that their children might be afflicted with a genetic disease, especially if the said disease was known to be running in the family, and spare them from the difficulties of raising a sick or a disabled child when they might not be ready for it.

Outside of selection against undesirable traits, one of the perks of such a technique would be the ability to select in favor of some traits. For example, it could technically be possible to select in favor of a set of genes known to offer protection against some types of cancer. Another one would be to select in favor of genes that are highly correlated with intelligence. All these possibilities would in fact allow us to make sure that the second generation is better (in some aspects) than the first. As long as the technology is available to everyone and not only to a selected few wealthy people, I can only see that as something that goes in the interest of everyone, parents, children and society.

As interesting as this individual vision of eugenic is, it would still means that whatever change it would bring to society, and whatever “variety” of “better” individual it might create would still be limited by the painfully slow procession of generations. In his article about In vitro eugenics, Robert Sparrow (2013) discusses the possibility of creating multiple generations of embryo selections through the use of induced pluripotent cells. Indeed, he foresees the use of any cell to be turned into gametes, therefore making it possible to create multiple generations of embryos without having to wait for them to grow into a sexually mature person. In his assessment of the technology, he evaluates that up to 2 or 3 generations might be created every year, and suppose that, with every passing generation, it would be possible to select in favor of a “better” genotype, which would eventually allow for the creation of an artificially selected embryo that would hold as many desirable traits as possible.

The ethical implications of this are very delicate, and they involve the ethics of creating embryos for the sole purpose research and it raises the question of what is the person created through multiple generations of in vitro eugenics going to be like. One of the main concerns is about how these multiple induction of pluripotent cells and artificial creation of embryo might affect the epigenetics of cells, which might lead to non-viable or dangerously flawed embryos. This issue raises the question: If eugenicists were to create a “flawed” person, a failed experience, how are they supposed to deal with it if they only realize it after birth? The embryo would obviously turn into a person, both morally and legally and the implication of them living a life of suffering as a direct result of the human intervention would be morally unsound. Any attempt at in vitro eugenics should therefore only be done once all the implications of epigenetics were clearly understood and could be included in the assessment of which embryo would be selected for.

Furthermore, one of the main barriers to realizing in vitro eugenics is our understanding of the link that exists between genotype and phenotype. Once believed to be a “one gene=one trait” relationship, traits have now been proven to be the result of incredibly complex relationships between multiple genes, epigenetics and environment. Unless this relationship were to be fully understood, it would be practically impossible to select for desired traits since the trait itself might be encoded in a way that is too complex to be assessed.

I don’t believe eugenics to be morally bad in and by itself. What I do believe is that any technology that makes it possible should be properly framed in order to prevent the ethical hurdles they might create. I also believe that we should steer clear of any Galton type eugenics, which would force people to have children that are seen as “appropriate” for the need of society. Ultimately, I believe that it should rest into parent’s hand to make embryo selection a part of their reproductive strategy, just like it is up to them to choose their partners and to decide if they want to have children or not.

Sources

Sparrow, R. (2014). In vitro eugenics. Journal of medical ethics, 40(11), 725-731.

Wilkinson, S., & Garrard, E. (2013). Eugenics and the ethics of selective reproduction

Cultural eugenics

My post today is going to be about something I’ve already brushed in my two previous posts. In my Aldous Huxley’s example of a dystopia brought along in part by the artificial creation of perfectly adapted humans in an artificial womb, the most salient aspect might seem to be ectogenesis, which, when presented in such a dystopic environment, might seem like a pretty dehumanizing process. However, I think that the one thing that is the most morally revolting in this image of humans being created like cars on an assembly line is less the absence of a mother and more the fact that humans are being engineered and created on purpose to suit the needs of society. This practice comes from a selection process called eugenics. The idea of eugenics is typically attributed to Francis Galton who, inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggested that the human species could be made better by artificially selecting those with more desirable traits such as intelligence or wealth while keeping other people, with “inferior” traits from breeding. To put it in very general words, eugenics can be defined as “making the gene pool of humans better”. This idea, born in 1883, was partly used by the Nazis to justify the killing of thousands of people, and I’m pretty sure that very few today would like to be associated to the Nazis by defending ideas of eugenics.

In my second post about ectogenesis, I have discussed the delicate moral issue of doctors having to take the decision about keeping a foetus alive after miscarriage, considering that such a foetus could lead to weakened human that could potentially live a life of suffering. This is an issue that is closely associated with eugenics, and one way that ectogenesis could be questioned as a technique because of its moral consequences. However, I believe that the mechanism of eugenics is already present in our present society as a form of cultural eugenics and that the technology that could make it more salient, such as the embryo selection from the “Brave new world” dystopia is mostly an extension of a process that’s been happening anyway.

The idea of eugenics was in part inspired by Galton’s half-cousin Darwin’s theory of natural and sexual selection. This theory basically states that in the natural world (of which humans are a part of), the selection of who gets to mate and who doesn’t isn’t random and that desirable traits will make it more likely that an individual will reproduce before they die. Natural selection is the process through which traits that give an individual more chances to survive will have more chances to be… well, alive when mating time comes. The second process, sexual selection, underline the fact that individual are actively choosing their own partners when it comes to reproduction and that in order to do so, they will choose those who have desirable traits. In that aspect, I believe that the basis for eugenics, to choose which individual gets to reproduce or not is but an attempt to consciously control something that already happens in nature.

While we might question the wisdom of trying to influence something nature is already doing (The good old nature is good argument), there is no doubt that it is already happening anyway through cultural norms and systemic oppressions that we are already seeing in the world. We already live in a world where popular culture, media and publicity is actively shaping people’s belief about who is “fuckable” or not. If you don’t find a sexual partner because society judges you unattractive, be it because of your skin color, disability, lack of resources or simply because you don’t fit in the typical model of beauty, then it is less likely that you are going to have children.

Furthermore, I believe that society encourages some even more salient forms of eugenics by reducing access to assisted reproduction techniques. Indeed, at least in Quebec, there has been a strong debate about who should have a free access to these techniques, and one of the predominant opinion was that only “medically infertile couples”, which is usually defined as a typical straight couple having trouble conceiving, should be allowed access. Concretely, it meant that it was considered that a single person capable of bearing a child or a lesbian couple where one of the women is fertile shouldn’t have access to this service on the ground that they could potentially “find a man to do the job”. Similarly, the practice of surrogate mothers, the only alternative for a single infertile person and for a completely infertile couple, especially a gay male couple, to have children has been even more vigorously shunned as woman’s exploitation, even in the cases where the surrogate mom was completely consenting. The general idea behind the discomfort is that “nature shouldn’t be tempered with”, which underlines that there is a natural “law” that people should follow in order to have the “right” to reproduce. Similarly, in many of these cases, it is seen as less of a problem if the people involved can pay the procedure on their own, which would in turn give a reproductive advantage to the wealthy.

Similarly, a commonly held belief is that in order to become a parent, whether through natural reproduction or through assisted reproduction technique, a couple should be able to prove that they can be decent parents. Since it is impossible to know before they actually have children if a person would in fact be a good parent (something which is already difficult to judge when they do have children), it means that such a measure would imply finding absolute factors which would decide if someone is going to be a good or a bad parent. Such factors would in all likeliness be strongly affected by wealth, education and access to care, which would obviously lead to a form of eugenics that wouldn’t be very far from Galton’s original idea.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that any form of eugenic practice should be under strong scrutiny, whether they are the result of a new technology or simply the result of the present access to present reproductive technologies and to parenthood. I’d also like to point out that while embryo selection is a budding technological application (more on this in later posts), selective abortion is a very common practice that is used in cases of multiple pregnancies (where the weakest foetus is often “reduced” to allow the others more chances of survival) and in cases of early detected genetic disabilities such as Down’s syndrome. It is also very commonly practiced on female foetus in some areas of the world where it is believed that having a girl puts too much of a burden on the family. I don’t consider eugenics to be essentially bad, but there is certainly a debate to be made about the present cultural norms that allow forms of it thrive.

To know more:

This is an awesome paper on the implication of eugenics, especially on the ethics of it technological applications (More to come later)

Wilkinson, S., & Garrard, E. (2013). Eugenics and the ethics of selective reproduction.

A paper about surrogacy and consent:

Oakley, J. (1992). Altruistic surrogacy and informed consent. Bioethics, 6(4), 269-287.

Foetal reduction

Depp, R., Macones, G. A., Rosenn, M. F., Turzo, E., Wapner, R. J., & Weinblatt, V. J. (1996). Multifetal pregnancy reduction: evaluation of fetal growth in the remaining twins. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology,174(4), 1233-1240.

Napolitano, R., & Thilaganathan, B. (2010). Late termination of pregnancy and foetal reduction for foetal anomaly. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 24(4), 529-537.

Yes, another wikepedia source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics