The History and Practice of Eugenics, PT 11

The History and Practice of Eugenics

Human Genetic Engineering

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World depicted a future society, where people are selectively bred to be genetically perfect. Their genes determine which class of people they will be born into, a sort of genetic caste system. In our time, this will play out through human genetic engineering. This field purports to be trying to correct the genes that cause disease and chronic health conditions.

What genetic engineering does is alter a person's genotype, or their genetic makeup, in order to change their observable traits, or phenotype. Under modern eugenics, negative and positive are terms applied differently.

Negative engineering, attempts to fix, things that are wrong, genetic abnormalities, etc. This is accomplished, by removing genes to prevent diseases or treat genetic diseases. The cells that are altered are called somatic cells. They are non-reproductive cells. This is referred to as gene therapy and somatic cell gene transfer,(SCGT).

Some of the systems in the human body have self-renewing stem cells. They are constantly dividing to replenish all of the cells within that sytem. Bone marrow has these cells that regenerate in order to make new red and white blood cells. But there are other areas of the body like nerve cells, that don't have these self-renewing stem cells.These are the cells that scientific researchers want to use embryonic stem cells for. Embryonic stem cells, can become any cell type in the body, because they are not already coded for a specific purpose or area of the body.

Once the doctors have these replacement cells, they have to get them into the area of the body they are designed to fix or treat. They often use viruses to do this and the patient runs the risk of a severe autoimmune response, which could lead to death.

But there have been successes, and there are projects being conducted, aimed at curing cancer, blindness and bone marrow diseases.

Negative genetic engineering is also being used to find genetic diseases before and during pregnancy. Most people are at least slightly familiar with what an amniocentesis is. It is when they take a sample of the embryonic fluid withing the amniotic sac. It was only used during the first trimester of pregnancy. Parents who have trouble conceiving can opt to undergo in vitro fertilization and implantation of an embryo. Now they have the option to have preimplantation diagnosis (PGD). This gives parents the ability to only have the healthiest embryos implanted. The embryos not chosen for implantation, are usually disposed of. Parents have to decide whether or not an embryo with a medical condition should be disposed of even if the condition is treatable. Parents could conceivably pick the sex or eye color of the embryos they implant.

If at some future date, the technology is perfected to allow genetic modification of an embryo through gene therapy, it would also affect the embryos sperm or ovum. This gene modification would effectively be changing the genes passed on to successive generations. This is called inheritable genetic modification.

Positive genetic engineering attempts to improve upon people's genetic makeup or the the genes of their offspring. This is sometimes called gene doping. In 2008, the World Anti-Doping Agency defined it as the "non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or modulation of gene expression having the capacity to enhance performance."

It has not been documented to be occurring, there are those who believe it is being conducted in secret. Earlier, I wrote about the insulin-like growth factor 1(IGF-1) in food. But in 2002, researchers were inserting IGF-1 into the muscle cells of mice to enlarge their muscles and creating "Schwarzenegger Mice." It has also been reported that the fat-burning protein PPAR into mice, gave the ability to run twice as fast. If athletes began using this method of enhancement, those who were testing for it, would have to completely sequence their genome to find evidence of it.

In the not too distant future, people will have to decide where to draw the line. If we altered the genes of short people, so that they could become taller, or gave people better eyesight, without regulation, what is to stop doctors from making people more intelligent or more athletic.

Eugenics is being proposed to us as a choice, as opposed to the forced government coercion of the past. Julian Savulescu is chair of the Oxford Center for Practical Ethics at Oxford University. In a paper he wrote in 2002, called Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children, he said, "Couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about non-disease genes." He supports choosing children not just with their health in mind, but based on intelligence and gender. He refers to it as a "private enterprise" that is based on the choice of the parents. I have already covered what has happened in China, due to the practice of choosing the viability of a life based on gender. What is less well known, is that parents in the U.S. are choosing in increasing numbers to have male children, which is resulting in a declining number of female children.

If we as a society value male life above female life prior to birth, obviously, female children are going to face discrimination their whole life for being female. A system of giving women reproductive rights, in order to make their lives better, will ultimately make the life of women worse.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, published a paper called, The Demand for Sons: Evidence from Divorce, Fertility, and Shotgun Marriage (NBER Working Paper No. 10281),by Gordon Dahl and Enrico Moretti. They say that "Parental preference affects divorce, child custody, marriage, shotgun marriage when the sex of the child is known before birth, child support payments, and the decision of parents not to have any more children."

They compiled statistics from the U.S. Census from 1940-2000. These statistics show that a first born daughter is much less likely to be living with her father than a first born son. This is because women who only have female children are 2-7 percent more likely to never become married than women with male children. When parents marry because of an unplanned pregnancy, the so called shotgun wedding, it happens much more frequently when they know from an ultrasound that the baby is a boy. If the parents do not know the sex of the baby, the rate of marriage before birth is about the same. Statistic are showing that men who know they are about to have a son, are much more likely to marry the mother.

Couples who only have girls, get divorced more frequently than parents of boys. This increase is between 1 and 7 percent. This would indicate at least the possibility that men prefer spending time with sons than with daughters. They would lose this ability or find it severely limited after a divorce, and therefore may be less willing to lose access to sons as a result of divorce and therefore stay married. This difference in divorce rate is not effected by geographic region, race or economic pr educational level of the family. Fathers are also 11-22 percent more likely to have custody of their sons after a divorce than they are to have custody of their daughters.

Families that already have at least two children, are more likely to have another child if their existing children are girls. Divorced mothers are less likely to get child support for two daughters than for two sons.

Dahl and Moretti say that polls taken since 1940 show that men would prefer to have a son by more than a two to one margin. Women have much less preference toward having daughters.

At the present time, it is expensive to have testing done to choose the sex of your unborn child, but in the future such will not be the case. "As the cost of procedures falls and their reliability rises, the sex-ratio in the population may slowly become more male," Dahl and Moretti conclude. "More importantly, the bias for boys evidenced by our results may lead to worse outcomes for daughters." http://www.nber.org/digest/oct04/w10281.html

But in the West, we have consistently had a stronger prejudice against the sick and disabled than we do against female children.

In April of 2012, ABC reported that a new test to determine if your child had Down's Syndrome, as early as the 10th week of pregnancy. It is called the MaterniT21. It detects extra chromosomes floating around in the mother's blood from the baby. The tests can result in miscarriage. And since most insurance companies are not yet covering it, the cost to parents is about $475.http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/health&id=8634164

A doctor at Children's Hospital Boston, Dr. Brian Skotko, who is a clinical fellow in genetics was the lead study author on a study of 3000 Down's Syndrome patients and their families. It was published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in October 2011. The study found that siblings age 12 and older were 97 percent said they felt proud of their siblings with Down's Syndrome. The children who themselves had Down's Syndrome 99 percent said they were happy, 97 percent liked who they are, and 96 percent were happy with their appearance.

The level of disability and health problems that accompany Down's Syndrome varies. It causes impairment of intellect, heart and stomach problems weak immune system, poor hearing and a shortened lifespan, typically living to their 50's. Some of the children are high-functioning, and healthy. But others can be severely disabled and unable to communicate. Up to 90% of women abort their pregnancies, when told the fetus has Down's Syndrome. While I would hesitate to fault parents who choose to abort a child when faced with the daunting diagnosis of Down's Syndrome, this study does show that there are some misconceptions as to whether such a child and their family can lead happy fulfilling lives.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44703812/ns/health-health_care/t/down-syndromes-rewards-touted-new-test-looms/#.T-q5ZVTwGSo

What other sector of the population can say that 90 percent of them are happy?

In the Journal of Legal Medicine a doctor and lawyer said that a woman who gave birth to a child with Tay-Sachs disease, after being given the diagnosis, should be prosecuted. (Lori B. Andrews, “The Clone Age: Adventures in the New World of Reproductive Technology,” p. 161).

Those who support modern eugenics, say that since it is personal choice, it will not be plagued with the evils perpetrated in the past. I would like to know when in human history has the ability to have free choice, prevented abuse of that freedom?

I believe that all human life is valuable and it should be respected, protected and treated with dignity. We all have human dignity. This is not dependent on our genetics or our perceived disabilities. Our human dignity can not been seen in our genes under a microscope. It has to be experienced.

“The people of our time, sensitized by the terrible vicissitudes that have covered the 20th century and the very beginning of this one in mourning, are able to understand that man’s dignity is not identified with his DNA genes and that it does not diminish with the eventual presence of physical differences or genetic defects.”--Pope Benedict XVI, 2005

Darwin felt that, "Elite status is prima facie evidence of evolutionary superiority."

I am not from any elite family, but my genealogy goes all the way back to Cleopatra; I descend from the kings of the once mythical city of Troy; I descend from a long line of pharaohs; I descend from dozens of Roman Caesars; there are kings from the Jewish diaspora in my heritage; I have several lines from Merovic, the king who the Merovingians derive their name from; I have countless families of European nobility within my line; I descend from the kings of France, Spain, Britain, Scotland and Ireland and Wales; The only difference between me and many other Americans is that I have sought out the information and can prove it. The difference between me and most of the so called elite, is that at some point my ancestors stopped feeling that your bloodline was of more importance than what you did with your life. I do not believe anything is "prima facie evidence of evolutionary superiority." I believe that you prove your superiority with your actions and your character. And above all, I believe that God is no respecter of persons. If it is not in his plan, eugenics will never improve upon His creation. The created cannot improve on the work of the Creator. They may be able to alter or change it, but never improve upon His creation. He didn't put us here to evolve, but to transcend. We were given free will with which to achieve it. If you allow them to take it away, you will never fulfill your purpose.

Men, in their effort to improve humanity have instead, committed some grievous wrongs against mankind in their arrogance

“All animals are created equal, some are just more equal than others”. --George Orwell, Animal Farm.