Eugenics as a science

[ecoli]

I got this college freshman textbook called "Fundementals of Biology" from 1928 that my uncle found somehwere. Needless to say I was a bit surprized at the presentation of Eugenics as a science...something I believe was shunned after Hitler and WWII. Anyway, I just wanted to share a bit of it and see what you guys think

 

Elimination of Defectives - By defectives is meant not only the feeble-minded and insane' date=' but criminals, paupers, tramps, beggars and all persons who are a burden to prisons, asylums, almshouses and similar institutions, a great many defectives are at large, free to propagate their kind. For example, it has been estimated that there are between 300,000 and 500,000 feeble-minded persons in the United States of which perhaps only one-tenth are confined in institutions. Although these individulas are not a direct menace to society themsleves, as a class they are reprouding at a higher rate then normal persons.

...at least 60% of them [cases of feeblemindedness'] are due to an inherited tendancy, and cannot be corrected... For the most part, it seems to be inherited as a simple Mendelian recessive. There is also ample evidence that many forms of insanity are recessive.

 

 

I, myself, was most shocked at the use of "normal persons" as if to say that "defectives" are a different species.

[Mokele]

Needless to say I was a bit surprized at the presentation of Eugenics as a science...something I believe was shunned after Hitler and WWII.

 

Well, the book was written in 1928, long before WW2....

[Green]

A very interesting idea indeed.And a very proper and debatable topic..ecoli.

But isnt it possible that even if they are prvented from reproducing genes from the normal parents might have defective reproductive genes that would be past down by their reproduction?

[cosine]

Yeah eugenics was a popular modernist idea that came from social darwinism. We discuss it alot in my Latin American class about transculturation.

[ecoli]

A very interesting idea indeed.And a very proper and debatable topic..ecoli.

But isnt it possible that even if they are prvented from reproducing genes from the normal parents might have defective reproductive genes that would be past down by their reproduction?

 

They did claim it to be a "simple Mendilian recessive" although I'm sure thats not even remotely true. But I think that they might have overlooked that fact in their arguments... and is the reason why I would argue against eugenics. I believe evironment plays a large role' date=' rather then genetics.

 

Yeah eugenics was a popular modernist idea that came from social darwinism. We discuss it alot in my Latin American class about transculturation.

 

about what in particular?

[Skye]

I got this college freshman textbook called "Fundementals of Biology" from 1928 that my uncle found somehwere. Needless to say I was a bit surprized at the presentation of Eugenics as a science...something I believe was shunned after Hitler and WWII. Anyway, I just wanted to share a bit of it and see what you guys think

There's nothing to say eugenics can't be based on science. Animal and plant breeding is now relies heavily on science, and they are analogous to eugenics.

 

Eugenics has been shunned since WWII, but they were still sterilisation programs for the mentally ill after WWII in many countries.

[DV8 2XL]

Scientifically founded or not, the whole idea of eugenics is morally reprehensible and ethically unsupportable. The key issue is who will be controlling the germ line, and to what ends.

 

Although somewhat campy in the modern idiom, Huxley's Brave New World pretty well sums up the impact of this sort of program. A sterile, homogeneous society that cannot go forward because it cannot change.

[ecoli]

There's nothing to say eugenics can't be based on science. Animal and plant breeding is now relies heavily on science, and they are analogous to eugenics.

 

I'm not saying Eugenics can't be based on science, but isn't human genetics more complex then these plant ones? To say that most cases of insanity is caused by a "Simple Medelian recessive" - isn't that a stretch. And what about environmental factors? The effect of environmental factors amoung the insane and homeless (I'm thinking about war, here) cannot be ignored.

[H W Copeland]

I think it depends on whether or not one is talking about insanity, or mental retardation.

 

Certainly environment can contribute to insanity, but usually mental retardation is caused from some form of pre natal defect of injury, although I suppose that a prenatal injury could be said to be an environmental hazard.

[DV8 2XL]

It's not that it's more complex (although, yes the original "Simple Mendelian recessive" statement is an oversimplification), it's the fact that humans mature slowly, breed slowly, and don't have a lot of offspring at a time that makes this sort of husbandry difficult. Also, environmental factors or not, complex behavior is not likely to code on a single allele, making the whole process of selection more difficult.

[Kermit]

Haven't been around the forums for a while, been a bit busy with schoolwork. Aaaaaanyway i'm back.

 

Eugenics.. how do they even call that a science? That's a fricking pseudoscience. They actually thought that being poor was caused by a gene and the "illness" of being poor was pauperism. A pretty fascinating (and disturbing) book on it is War on the Weak, forgot what the author was. Should be in your local Barnes and Noble in the Science section.

[DV8 2XL]

the "illness" of being poor was pauperism.

 

I love it! That laugh made my day.

[Martin]

Scientifically founded or not' date=' the whole idea of eugenics is morally reprehensible and ethically unsupportable. The key issue is who will be controlling the germ line, and to what ends.

 

Although somewhat campy in the modern idiom, Huxley's Brave New World pretty well sums up the impact of this sort of program. A sterile, homogeneous society that cannot go forward because it cannot change.[/quote']

 

My next door neighbors are a young couple where she works in the Green Building movement and he works in a startup company that does genetic testing and counseling. It is private and voluntary of course.

 

Couples may very well want genes info before making decisions about whether and how to have a child. People may decide they want to know if they carry some gene that puts them at risk of something----e.g. breast cancer.

 

There is a whole spectrum of different RESPONSES to gene info. If a guy finds he has a dangerous gene he doesnt want to pass on to his kid, then he doesnt simply go and have himself sterilized. The couple can:

 

1. do in vitro and implant only embryo that doesnt have the gene

2. use donor sperm

3. adopt

4. if the gene is only expressed in males, they can choose to have a baby girl (another genetic choice open to people)

 

=====================

 

there is a lot of stuff going on which I would call APPLIED GENETICS, rather than Eugenics.

 

the definition of Eugenics that some of the people in this thread seem to be using is what I would say is like

 

"Applied genetics run coercively by the State"

and the image people have in mind also seems to be of a Totalitarian State, or some other kind of horror.

 

Even more disgusting is when people use the word Eugenics to mean

"Applied genetics run coercively by the State AS WRITTEN ABOUT AND THOUGHT ABOUT IN 1928" or whenever.

====================

 

All that has the effect of negative propaganda against the legitimate use of applied genetics by parents.

 

the point that should be made is that parents have a right to use genetic information to improve their chances of having HEALTHY AND HAPPY children, and a happy family life. And nobody is better fitted than the parents themselves to decide what that means.

 

If they want to reduce the risk of breast cancer, or Huntington's chorea (things which run in families) they should be allowed to. Basically that is voluntary Eugenics. Well so what?

If they think it is really important to be intelligent and get a PhD, well you may philosophically disapprove, but they should have the right to pick an embryo with good brain genes.

 

Its fine if you want to say "Well, that is not really Eugenics, what I mean is what they talked about 1928 or when the State does it coercively etc."

Just be sure that all the bad mouthing doesnt spill over on to applied human genetics in general---especially the voluntary kind.

[DV8 2XL]

Eugenics was (is) a social-political movement, thus any criticisms are directed against what it stood for. The fact that modern genetic testing and counseling seeks to help people avoid tragedy by roughly the same measures should not mean that the two should be painted by the same brush.

 

But that doesn't mean we should not be on our guard, because the underling philosophies of Eugenics still have some support. It is a short step from; "All women over forty should be screened for Down's Syndrome" to "All women over forty must be screened for Down's Syndrome." Careful attention to this technology must be kept up. You see in my last post I was laughing at the phrase: " the "illness" of being poor was pauperism" because pauperism is defined not as the state of poverty, but rather the state of being the recipient of charity. The author of the quote was more concerned with the public expense than, relieving human suffering.

[Mokele]

but isn't human genetics more complex then these plant ones?

 

Very, very much the reverse. Plant genetics and inheritance is freaking *weird*, with all sorts of bizarre stuff going on. One of the earliest investigators into inheritance was utter foiled simply becaue he chose to experiment on the evening primrose, which has a series of odd sequences in the chromosome which lead to the chromosomes sticking together in a ring during crossing over, and not getting properly un-stuck (effectively giving the plant a single giant chromosome).

 

However, yes, things are substantially more complex than that section you quoted claimed.

 

Eugenics.. how do they even call that a science? That's a fricking pseudoscience. They actually thought that being poor was caused by a gene and the "illness" of being poor was pauperism.

 

Well, it's not really psuedoscience. It does make testable, falsifiable predictions (that selection on certain traits will alter their frequency).

 

The problem is that it's immoral, based on the assumption that environment contributes minimally, and was formed before the advent of molecular biology and the concept of genetic load (basically, that if you have 1000 alleles tha all decrease fitness by 1%, you can't select on *all* of them, especially not in a finite population).

 

So it's not so much psuedoscience as just wrong (ethically and factually).

 

Mokele

[Sisyphus]

Two things:

 

Don't you think we should draw a distinction between what is factually true and what isn't? Sure, "pauperism" is obviously not passed on. But also obvious is that some things are, or else there would be no such science as genetics. "Eugenics," defined as intentional cultivation of traits through selective breeding, has been used successfully and continuously for thousands of years, and that's why there's differences between domesticated and wild plants and animals. Just because someone made wrong assumptions in the past doesn't discredit the whole science. Yes, environment has an effect on everything. So what?

 

Also, be careful not to confuse the scientific issues with the ethical ones, as it seems like most people are doing. Are there ethical issues? Of course (although I don't think it's as black and white as everyone else seems to). Does that have anything whatsoever to do with scientific merit? No, not at all.

[DV8 2XL]

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through social intervention. The goals have variously been to create more intelligent people, save society resources, lessen human suffering and reduce health problems.

 

Genetic counselling is the process by which patients or relatives at risk of a inherited disorder are advised of the consequences and the nature of the disorder, the probability of developing or transmitting it and the options open to them in management and family planning in order to prevent, avoid or ameliorate it.

 

Reprogenetics is a term referring to the merging of reproductive and genetic technologies expected to happen in the near future as techniques like preimplantation genetic diagnosis become more available and more powerful.

 

Let's not bleed terms together. Distinctions are important in any discussion of this sort.

[RedAlert]

Also, be careful not to confuse the scientific issues with the ethical ones, as it seems like most people are doing. Are there ethical issues? Of course (although I don't think it's as black and white as everyone else seems to). Does that have anything whatsoever to do with scientific merit? No, not at all.

 

Science and ethics go hand in hand. We study science for the betterment of humanity, not just because we like to blindly store information in our brains. The betterment of humanity is related very much to ethics.

[Mokele]

. "Eugenics," defined as intentional cultivation of traits through selective breeding, has been used successfully and continuously for thousands of years, and that's why there's differences between domesticated and wild plants and animals.

 

It's also why most domestic breeds are genetically messed up in some way or another, usually in direct proportion to the intensity and duration of selection.

 

Controlled breeding, on the whole, produces weaker, inferior animals no matter what traits you select for, because a) working with anything bigger than fruit flies necessitates a population small enough for drift to cause all kinds of problems b) selction on any organism with less than 100,000 offspring lifetime output *will* result in useless or even deleterious traits becoming fixed as those genes simply 'tag along', hidden inside an otherwise exemplary specimen and c) simply selecting for a trait ignores numerous problems such as epistatic interactions, loss of heterozygosity due to tag-along genes and drift, developmental constraints, and frequency-dependent fitness.

 

Our definitions of how 'sucessful' breeding for domestication has been evidently differ greatly; just ask any vet about the health problems of purebred dogs.

 

Yes, environment has an effect on everything. So what?

 

Well, first, how heritable something is determines how fast it'll respond to selection. Some things, like genetic disease, are entirely genetic, while others are a mix, and it'd surprise you how low some traits are: Darwin's finches show only about 60% heritability in beak depth.

 

Now, apply the likely level of selection applied (likely very low for any one trait, especially since it's likely we'd select for multiple traits at once) to the long generation time of humans and likely low heritability of the trait under question, and you probably won't see results for 1000 years or more.

 

Mokele

[Sisyphus]

Yes, inbreeding causes problems. Is that the issue, then? That it doesn't work? That it harms the genetic stock instead of helping it? If so, then isn't that also just eugenics? Selecting a policy because it's better for the gene pool? If there were a way to employ eugenics such that the populace became more healthy with no negative side-effects, would you still be against it? How about if it also made the average person smarter, longer-living, etc.? That's what I mean by separating the science and the ethics. There are two questions: 1) Does it work, or how can it be made to work? and 2) If it did work perfectly, should it be done?

[Mokele]

Yes, inbreeding causes problems.

 

To a certain extent; it's drift that compounds it causing the biggest problem, IMHO. Inbreeding can be solved by random mating for several generations, but drift cannot; inbreeding merely produces a defecit of heterozygotes, while drift can cause non-selective loss/fixation of alleles.

 

Is that the issue, then? That it doesn't work? That it harms the genetic stock instead of helping it?

 

That's the scientific issue with it, yes.

 

If there were a way to employ eugenics such that the populace became more healthy with no negative side-effects, would you still be against it?

 

No, on ethical grounds. People have the right to make their own reproductive choices. If stupid people want kids, fine, and I and my GF should not b forced to have crotch-droppings, I mean kids, simply because we're smart.

 

There are two questions: 1) Does it work, or how can it be made to work? and 2) If it did work perfectly, should it be done?

 

No, for all. It can't work properly, can't be fixed, and shouldn't be done for ethical reasons even if it could be fixed.

 

Mokele

[ecoli]

No, on ethical grounds. People have the right to make their own reproductive choices. If stupid people want kids, fine, and I and my GF should not b forced to have crotch-droppings, I mean kids, simply because we're smart.

 

Interesting, I didn't even think of it in that way before.

[Sisyphus]

Well as long as we've clarified what we're talking about. I'll take your word for it that it can't possibly work - I don't know much about such things. I'm also in agreement that it probably shouldn't be done in any case, but I'm not as sure about it as you seem to be. Why is freedom of reproduction an inalienable right? I know this a different (but related) issue, but I've often wondered if the world wouldn't be better if people had to prove basic competence (in parenting, if nothing else) before they could have children. After all, you don't just have the parent to consider, but the child as well. You have to weigh the state's responsibility to protect the parent's rights against its responsibility to protect that parent's children and the well-being of the state. Maybe both responsibilities are imaginary, I don't know....

[ecoli]

Why is freedom of reproduction an inalienable right?

 

Because I hate when government gets too big. Controlling, too closely, these sorts of social and moral aspects is not the job of a government.

[Mokele]

Why is freedom of reproduction an inalienable right? I know this a different (but related) issue, but I've often wondered if the world wouldn't be better if people had to prove basic competence (in parenting, if nothing else) before they could have children. After all, you don't just have the parent to consider, but the child as well.

 

I think it's a right, but like all rights, there are conflicts in which one right can supersede another. For instance, my right to freedom of speech can be superseded by other's right to life, thereby preventing me from having the specific right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (to use the age-old example).

 

Mokele