In sociology, a bio-social environment can largely benefit from the applied science of eugenics. In other words, eugenics supports the study of modifying or boosting the genetic make-up of any sample of a population.
In most cases, the human population is the major target in the application of eugenics practices. It is also imperative to mention that eugenics is a broad social philosophy that attempts to improve the productivity and genetic wellbeing of certain individuals, while lowering the productivity of some individuals by modifying their genetic make-up.
It is definite that eugenics has been a subject of great discourse and controversy since the time it was developed and adopted. During the first few decades of the 20th century, eugenics had attained high popularity especially in the western world. It had been recognized as a formidable social movement. For instance, institutions, influential individuals as well governments were already propagating and advocating the practice of eugenics before the mid 20th century.
Although the identification and understanding of certain features and compositions of genes have been facilitated in the study of genetics, there are still no definite and approved scientific methods that can be used to evaluate traits that may finally be useful. However, eugenics has been moderately applied in boosting body defense against diseases such as Cholera and Malaria.
In terms of genetic diversity, it is worth to mention that policies that promote eugenics are likely to interfere with the natural diversity of genes among various populations. There is a wide pool of scientific evidences which have demonstrated that vulnerability towards certain ailments could be rife especially among populations with modified genes.
For instance, individuals whose genes have been incapacitated find it difficult to adapt effectively against prevailing environmental conditions. Needless to say, when undesired genes are eliminated in the process of eugenics, the diversity of genes portfolio is equally reduced leading to unbalanced population in terms of various personalities needed to supplement society.
Individuals and corporate bodies who support the practice of eugenics argue that the process of eliminating genes may not necessarily impact a population negatively because it as slow program that can be reversed whenever undesired consequences are noted.
They also reiterate that when a particular program on eugenics is adopted, any unwanted consequences can be noted in advance and therefore controlled accordingly. Additionally, they observe that in case of any significant reduction in gene diversity, then it will take remarkably long period of time with negligible effects. Therefore, there is no cause for alarm over the practice of eugenics.
The autism rights’ movements have also entangled themselves in the controversies surrounding eugenics. When genes are predisposed among individual with autism, it is definite that the rate of autism can be reduced.
However, autistic movements argue that there is no need of lowering the rate of autism using eugenics because it is an integral component of brain diversity. On the same note, the Down syndrome’s advocacy groups also purport that the latter condition is part and parcel of neurodiversity that should not be interfered with at all.
Finally, it is vital to mention the relevance of heterozygous recessive traits in relation to the practice of eugenics. There are scenarios when it is practically impossible to eliminate single-gene mutations. It is against this backdrop that genes with heterozygous recessive traits may be difficult to eradicate due to myriads of carriers that are attached to them. Therefore, eugenics is a scientific attempt in gene mutation that has not achieved complete success.