NursingLink

Designer babies in our Future, conclusion

A New Eugenics

Article Submitted by:

AbusyRN2go

about 1 month ago

articles submitted

Finally, some fear that any stress on improving human health or abilities will foster intolerance toward the 'less-than-perfect' and lead to a new outbreak of the kind of eugenics thinking that so blighted the reputation of genetics in the first half of the twentieth century. As the historian Diana Paul and others remind us, no one should ever underestimate the power of genetics to inflame people's passions and to feed existing prejudices. In its twentieth century forms, the eugenics movement comprised many diverse and often contrary directions, from racially motivated state oppression to efforts to empower families. It even included high-minded and idealistic impulses to social reform. In this context, the attempt to avoid one kind of danger, frequently leads to another.
Nevertheless, two features of the eugenics movement that made it so destructive were ill-founded (often crackpot) genetic science and state control and coercion of individual reproductive choice. The former problem, though never eliminated, is being addressed by advances in genomic research and the intense scrutiny to which claims of genetic causality are now subject. The problem of coercion persists. Some who have studied the movement ask whether it is not this coercive dimension, rather than a concern with genetic improvement, that was the core problem with eugenics. If so, a better way to avoid eugenic oppression may be to respect free and informed parental choice in reprogenetic matters.
Respect for parental discretion can help guide us through the maze of regulatory options that lie ahead. Although many bioethicists admire the approach to reprogenetic oversight represented by Britain's HFEA, such an approach may not work well everywhere. Drawing on my experience as a member of President Clinton's Human Embryo Research Panel, I believe that any form of centralized regulatory authority in the USA will quickly become the tool of conservative religious and other vocal oppositional groups. This has already happened in Italy, where a law governing IVF that was passed in 2004 under strong ecclesiastical pressure prohibits couples from producing more than three embryos, all of which must be transferred to the womb, and also forbids the use of donor gametes. This, has significantly lowered IVF success rates there, and, in some cases, increased the risks to women and children.
Alternatives for Oversight
What are the alternatives to centralized control? Some of them are in place today. The RAC, whose rulings apply only to federally funded research, leaving the private sector open to innovation, is one useful component. As we seek to guide parents and protect children, there is also much to be gained from updated professional standards and evolving common law precedents in reproductive medicine. Improved education to enhance genetic literacy and counseling programs for parents using reproductive technologies are also needed.
Discussions of human gene modification and gene enhancement tend to divide people into opposing camps. At one extreme are people like DNA co-discoverer James Watson, who enthusiastically advocates making 'better human beings'. At the other extreme are people holding conservative religious beliefs who believe that any form of genetic selection, including the use of PGD to prevent disease, represents an assault on the 'sanctity of human life' and an unjustified 'playing God'. In the middle, and uncomfortable with either extreme, are many people prepared to use genetics for disease prevention, but wary of any idea of human gene enhancement and fearful of a new outbreak of eugenics. Nevertheless, the tools needed for reprogenetic medicine are being improved with every passing day. PGD is already being used for purposes of selection, and it is only a matter of time until gene alteration and enhancement become possible.
Conclusion
Human beings have always sought to modify the world around them and their own biology. Reprogenetics is a continuation of this process, with its own risks and opportunities. Once the physiological risks are mastered, some parents will want to use this reproductive form of personalized medicine to improve their children's opportunities. Scientists and clinicians working in the fields of genomics and personalized medicine have the responsibility to ensure that genetic interventions are based on good science. The challenge before all of us is to identify and implement multiple forms of oversight that, consistent with respect for informed parental decision making, will allow us to monitor and control the introduction of these new forms of reprogenetic medicine so as to minimize the risks to children, families and society.