| Galton Institute Home Page | June 2000 Newsletter Contents | Newsletter Index |
There’s a lot of eugenics going on. Genetic counselling, pre-natal diagnosis and pre-implantation screening are a few examples. Bill Russell’s article in the December 1999 issue of the Newsletter described a eugenic initiative in the Jewish community aimed at eliminating the misery caused by Tay-Sachs disease. Philip Mellish’s letter in the last issue of the Newsletter drew our attention to the market in human eggs on the Internet. Surrogacy and egg purchase are becoming big business – and the subject of television programs, not to mention cartoons in the Financial Times – because the demand is there.
These are all examples of modern eugenics. But few people use the term to describe these developments. Instead, as Anthony Smith points out in his article starting on page 7 of this issue of the Newsletter, many people use the term only to describe the programme of racial hygiene undertaken in Nazi Germany. Although this is as misguided as saying that physics consists of nothing but building atomic bombs, it is a knee-jerk reaction so entrenched in the popular psyche, especially of journalists, that no amount of reasoned argument seems capable of shifting it. As Arthur Caplan et al said in an article in the 13 November 1999 issue of the British Medical Journal “before dismissing any favourable stance toward eugenics, it is important to distinguish between what has happened in the past under the banner of eugenics and what might happen in future”. But few critics of eugenics seem interested in a reasoned appraisal of the facts.
So what do we do? Important scientific and ethical issues arise from current developments in genetic understanding and technology. Their implications for choices in human reproduction are just what the Galton Institute exists to debate. And they need debating, because not all the consequences of exploiting new knowledge are good and it is only as a result of informed debate that people can make sensible choices. But if we use the term eugenics to describe these developments then, despite the fact that is exactly what they are, people who might otherwise praise our efforts to raise understanding of both the benefits and dangers of twenty-first century human genetics are going to be hostile instead. So what do we do? Do we abandon the term as Anthony Smith advocates? If so, what term do we use in its place? Let’s have a debate about this. Please send your ideas for publication in the Newsletter.
Incidentally, several people have written with views about where the Newsletter should be going. The consensus seems to be that we should dwell less on historical issues and focus more on current issues in reproductive choice – such as those described above. And there will be many more that we can’t predict – who, five years ago, would have predicted a market for human eggs on the Internet? But we can’t publish what people don’t write. So this is a plea for more contributions to the Newsletter on matters of topical interest. Whether you’re a supporter of the Institute’s activities or a critic makes no difference – if you have a well-argued point to make, the Newsletter is the place to express it. And, of course, the Newsletter is where those who dispute your conclusions will have the right to reply.