Introduction
For a long time, eugenics has been one of the most contradictory social issues. From the rational point of view, selection applied to a man is quite a positive phenomenon, as it aims to eliminate degeneration in the human gene pool. However, since the time of its formation as a concept and later as a science, eugenics had fallen into the wrong hands.
Definition of eugenics
Widely popular in the first decades of the XX century, eugenics later became associated with Nazi Germany, so that its reputation suffered considerably. However, the modern development of genetics and reproductive technologies makes it a substantial reconsideration of eugenics, its ethical and moral status in human life. Eugenics in general is defined as “a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed” (Singleton, 2014, p. 122). There exist two interpretations of eugenics. Negative eugenics claims that people with some hereditary disorders and deviations should be prohibited to reproduce for keeping the gene pool healthier. Positive eugenics assumes that healthy, intellectually genetically flawless human specimen should bring more and more descendants (Singleton, 2014).
The emergence of eugenic science
Deriving from ancient Greece, Sparta, and Rome, eugenics as a practical tool to improve the quality of the species was first described by the British psychologist Francis Galton. Supporting Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Galton formulated the principles of improvement of agricultural plants and cattle, as well as of human heredity, and in 1883 introduced the term “eugenics”. Gradually eugenic theories had spread in the academic circles of various countries, with the United States being the most fruitful one. Such interest was boosted by the massive immigration waves to the US. American scientific eugenics movement officially started in 1898 when Charles Davenport from Harvard presented his single gene theory of human traits. In 1910, Davenport together with the American Breeder’s Association established the Eugenics Record Office, the leading research institution of heredity deficiencies (Singleton, 2014).
The problem of sterilization
The main scientific “achievements” of that period led to the establishment of sterilization laws in a range of the states and widespread use of euthanasia in American mental clinics. Harry Laughlin, the creator of the Model Eugenical Sterilization Law, provided an economic justification for sterilization in comparison with regular medical treatment. In 1927, the notorious Buck v. Bell case in Virginia made it for the sterilization of imbecile, mentally ill and raff people to become an accepted rule. From the beginning of the XX century till the mid-70s more than 30 states adopted sterilization laws, with more than sixty thousand patients forcibly sterilized. The state sterilization practices had gone too far, and after the revelation of unreasonable and inhumane treatment of physically healthy small children in the 1974 Relf v. Weinberger case, the draconian regulations subsequently were loosened (Singleton, 2014).
Eugenics in the modern world
Nowadays the problems of eugenics, especially the fight against hereditary diseases, are solved within the framework of human genetics. Such tools as pre-implantation genetic screening, somatic and germline modification can help avoid unhealthy descendants from parents suffering genetic diseases. From one point of view, this may seem like an invasion of some divine plan, but from the other – such genetic changes avoid human suffering in the future (Singleton, 2014). Eugenic principles today can be useful to provide recommendations in cases of the desired and unwanted pregnancy.
Conclusion
Overall, eugenics itself is not a harm to society. The only harm comes from the perverted interpretation of the people. It is not a secret that man has transformed the process of natural selection by the development of medicine and technologies. The diseases, which once were obstacles for the transfer of defective genetic material to the next generations, can now be cured. Thus, if a man has invaded natural selection, he now has to deal with the quality of the genetic pool. The other point is that such improvement must be done based on the principles of equality, humane and impartiality.
References
Singleton, M. (2014). The ‘science’ of eugenics: America’s moral detour. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 19(4), 122-125.