The Eugenics of Personal Choice

According to The Nation, the fact that we're developing the ability to edit genes could have consequences for preventing genetic illnesses. But some see the specter of eugenics lurking in the background. The classic eugenicist aim of improving the human community by weeding out bad specimens seems old school compared to the sci-fi fantasy of directing the genetic destiny of ourselves and our families. And even though we're aiming at stretches of DNA instead of individuals, the program fits the neoliberal agenda so well that trouble ahead seems inevitable:"With the emergence of gene editing during an era of self-interested free-market individualism, will eugenics become acceptable and widespread again?"I wonder if this isn't just unethical but jumping the gun: even if we could pinpoint the genes responsible (a leap of faith in itself), tinkering with the genome seems like a premature panacea for maladies that probably have strong environmental and cultural factors as well. And what's the political price?

If I read it right, the article isn't trying to say that death camps for the unfit are right around the corner. What it's saying is that the eugenic goal of genetic improvement of the human race is essentially the same whether we're talking about the Malthusian idea of letting the less fit die, the sterilizers arguing that the gene pool can do without criminal chromosomes, or the post-human scheme to tinker with the genome directly. You sound like you're in general agreement with this concept.But the article points out that the eugenicists of old were interested in the value of genetic improvement for its own good, in a (perhaps misguided) collective vision for the future of humanity. And in our neoliberal day and age, gene-splicing won't just be done to rid humanity of cystic fibrosis but also to "improve" individuals and give their offspring some sort of perceived advantage over people who still have less-fit genes. To many doctors, this will just be the genetic version of cosmetic surgery, the individual's choice for increased self-worth. And there may be consequences down the line even apart from unforeseen effects on health: how can we be sure there won't be a social stigma attached to the possession of less-fit genes that will prevent people from attaining positions of influence?Food for thought, anyway, and undeserving of dismissal as bullshit.

The author of the article would say, I'd say, and I think AZPaul3 would say, that there is indeed a big ethical difference in the methods we use to go about realizing the eugenics goal. The point I was making was that the cultural context of eugenics has changed as well as the means used to conduct it. Furthermore, there may be consequences that we should be proactive in assessing before we decide that there's absolutely no downside to this program.

Let's at least admit that there are many, and much more momentous, unforeseen consequences that could come about by fucking with DNA than with a broken bone. Can we just talk this through before we start making changes to the delicate ecosystem of the genome, just so we could make it look like we did due diligence before going whole hog?No one's disputing that getting rid of cystic fibrosis would be a good thing. But beyond things like that, we quickly get into territory where we're defining what are "good" genes and what aren't on the basis of our personal and cultural biases, and this leaves the door wide open for abuse. Like I asked before, how do we know that people won't be screened for "bad" genes and prevented from marrying/procreating/holding a job because of the perceived flaws in their DNA? Isn't decreased genetic diversity a bad thing in itself? Is anyone who brings up questions like this engaging in nothing but knee-jerk fearmongering, impeding scientific progress for no reason?

Because you've handwaved them away, not because they're not good reasons to be circumspect about messing with the ecosystem of the genome. There are plenty of technological advancements that took place before anyone realized the full extent of their consequences: DDT, splitting the atom, thalidomide, the list goes on.

But in its last paragraph, the article states, I’ll be excited to watch the workaday applications of techniques like CRISPR unfold, in medicine and, especially, basic science. I guess we have different definitions of what fear mongering is, and what's involved in the term "kill." I understand you're not saying full speed ahead here, and I agree. But there's a Polyanna quality to the belief that the good stuff outweighs the bad, that progress is inevitable and ultimately beneficial. Especially in a field where there are so many unknowns, people have every right to be skeptical.And the most emphatic point the article is trying to make is that eugenics in our neoliberal world just reinforces the idea that we should look at problems like disease and deviance as individual issues and not in terms of social problems. The extent to which we focus on the biomedical aspects of health and quality of life and not the socioeconomic ones is a political decision: In short, neoliberal eugenics is the same old eugenics we’ve always known. When it comes to controlling our evolution, individualism and choice point toward the same outcomes as authoritarian collectivism: a genetically stratified society resistant to social changeone that places the blame for society’s ills on individuals rather than corporations or the government.

I'm of the opposite opinion, that people think that just because we're not leading anyone into death camps or euthanizing the infirm, it's just peachy.I'm willing to admit that a lot of hypothetical dangers in gene-splicing may be more cautionary tales than realistic concerns. However, the emphasis on making individuals and families responsible for ameliorating problems like health and well-being rather than our corporate and political overlords is a facet of this issue that no one else seems to think is a big deal. As you said, glitches in the gene-tinkering process might cause problems, but they could convceivably be fixed. The decision of a culture to define health and standards of well-being as matters of individual choice rather than as social concerns might not be so easy to reverse.

And, um, I've reiterated a couple of times what they said in the article about why it's the same old eugenics, despite that. If you don't get the point by now, I don't know why I should think another go-round would do the trick. Oh, the irony.

I think you're right, unfortunately. And the tragic thing is the amount of damage we could do not only to people through short-sighted gene tinkering, but to the way our society defines well-being through our haste to look for biological cures instead of focusing on the social context of disease and deviance.

I'm wasn't specifically addressing the whole gene-splicing matter there. I was just pointing out that if the way we define health and well-being focuses on the things that individuals can do to improve them, we ignore the way the society at large, and socioeconomic differences, contribute to (and damage) the health of individuals and families. If well-being becomes just another consumer item, then we're letting the market define the value of wellness and what a healthy, fulfilled human should be.And what incentive should business have to contribute to society's general health, apart from raising the productivity of its workforce? Should its products and services (and other business practices that affect the environment, for instance) be geared toward a broader definition of well-being, or is it whatever the traffic allows?