This paper talks and discuss the modification of genes for betterment of humanity and critically discuss all the moral aspects

1. EUGENICS AND GENE
MODIFICATION
Submitted by: Submitted to:
Deepanshu Bhatia Prof. Sanil V.
Sahil Lamba
Akash Biswal

2. INTRODUCTION:
Eugenics, as generally defined is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at
improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is classified into two types –
Positive Eugenics and Negative Eugenics. Positive Eugenics stresses on the social
philosophy of improving human genetic traits by allowing or favouring higher rate of
reproduction of people with desired traits. On the contrary negative eugenics refers
to the practice of reduced rates of sexual reproduction of people whose traits are
considered as less-desired. Eugenics as a whole comprises both of these
philosophies at once.
Some studies refer to Eugenics as the worldwide movement that took place between
1900 and 1940 in the United States, Britain and Germany where they attempted to
improve the genetic quality of human beings by doing research and practicing so
called “better breeding”. The argument to justify the practice was that it was
inefficient to allow people with genetic defects to get multiplied and then we have to
try and deal with the consequences of state caring for the offspring.
Eugenics refers to a social philosophy. To accomplish this we use Gene
modification. Genetic engineering or genetic modification, is the direct manipulation
of an organism's genome using biotechnology. By using a set of technologies we
change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and
across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms.
Another way of accomplishing genetic modification which is common in practice is
transgenics. It refers to the genetic process of removing genetic material from one
species of plants or animal and adding it to different species of plants/animals. It is
possible only because of the high similarity in genetic sequences for proteins among
species.

3. HISTORY AND HISTORICAL VIEWS ON
EUGENICS:
The term eugenics was originally coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton in 1883
to mean ‘truly’ or ‘purely’ born. It was redefined by Galton’s American disciple
Charles B. Davenport as ‘the science of the improvement of the human race by
better breeding’. It was based on the belief in the genetic inheritance of large number
of traits. The term ‘genetic’ at that time meant Mendelian heredity (Mendelian
inheritance is inheritance of biological features that follows the laws proposed by
Gregor Johann Mendel). In Mendelian heredity very complex traits are thought to be
governed by one or two genes.
Eugenicists identified that pauperism, criminality, racial differences, maniac
depressive insanity and that these social traits were genetically determined. So, they
developed two aspects of their study
(i) A research study in which they tried to determine the patterns of
inheritance exhibited by many of these traits (whether they were dominant
or recessive , sex-linked etc.)
(ii) Another program in which they tried to educate the common people about
the eugenic issues and enact their findings in social legislation
There were extensive measures relating to the findings and studies in eugenics
which were legislated and imposed in various places such as United states and
Europe. For example ,In the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924,the first immigration
quotas ever placed on countries in Western Europe , eugenicists were involved in
lobbying to impose their learnings in these policies.
This was just an example how these studies effect the politics and society. Further
will be discussed along as we discuss through the paper.

4. ARGUMENTS:
IN FAVOUR
In this paper we are going to consider both favour as well as against views for
Eugenics.
To defend eugenics we will show that it leads to betterment of society while
maintaining freedom, dignity and a sense of justice in individuals.
Eugenics literally means well-born and is defined as bettering the genes of an
individual. Betterment of genes means altering genes of individuals so that they
become smarter, healthier and physically fit or strong individuals.
Most contemporary people think that enhancement is a bad thing. It can be seen
when a great majority of people supported Batman when he fought Superman in the
recent movie "Dawn of Justice". Most people supported him because he had no
supernatural powers and he resembled them more. It can be all traced to the group
mentality to protect a group, like loyalty to religion, country or species. Superman
fans represent more of the so-called optimists and dreamers namely kids whereas
Batman fans represent the pessimists, cynics and people who value hard-work more
than talent.
So, is most of our opposition to eugenics based on this “Smart, healthy and strong”
are subjective terms but it does not mean that we don’t need to study the effects of
genes on them.
Intelligence is highly controversial among the three categories we are discussing.
There are different types of intelligence, for example, intelligence of a guitar virtuoso
is different from that of a physicist. The genes may be different but it is not due to the
lack of abilities. For example, lack of logical reasoning doesn’t make the guitarist
better or worse, it is the presence of creativity and abstract thought that makes him a
better one. So, if we improve or provide genes that deal with creativity as well as
logic, we would have a better and sensible guitarist. It is the same as sending one’s
kid to school to improve his intelligence. The kid may miss out on all the different
types of intelligence if it is a poor school but with eugenics, he gets all the genes to
help him develop into whichever individual he desires. That is not to schools
becoming unimportant but rather a stepping stone for an enhanced individual.
Health of an individual can be measured as immunation to many diseases and
certainly to hereditary diseases like sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, thalassemia,
haemophilia, Tay-sachs etc. Hereditary cancer and AIDS occur because of damaged
genes transferred from parents. If we replace those genes with normal genes we
produce healthier individuals and give hope to families who have these hereditary
liabilities. It also leads to decreased disabilities. We argue that it doesn’t reflect any
disrespect to people with disabilities. Indeed as Thomas Jefferson said, “All men are
created equal”, he meant that each individual has certain inalienable rights. He didn’t
mean the same abilities and certainly not an equal footing to start improving oneself.
Eugenics on the other hand can provide not exactly an equal footing but certainly a
more equal footing than nature provides us. Every disabled person will agree when

5. we say that they need respect not sympathy and be treated as equal to their
healthier kins.
Physically fit and strength are to a certain extent dependent on genes. It can be
argued that societal and environmental factors affect physical fitness but we can use
the same logic as we used in smartness. Suppose a man is living in a metropolitan
city and does a normal IT job with no physical strain on his body. He decides to join
a local gym so as to be physically fit or he may face back-aches and bone deficiency
trouble during latter stages of his life. He is in a way enhancing his abilities and
exercising his muscles. It would be same if we genetically improve it from the
beginning though he still has to do physical exercises.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW EUGENICS
Eugenics has been tarnished by the horrors of the Second World War and its
association with Nazis. Though it was equally popular within the allies. Americans
referred eugenics to justify sterilisation of immigrant populations of Chinese,
Mexicans and non-Anglo-Saxons from Europe, the British used it to lobby for
incarceration of disabled and diseased people. It was associated with efficiency in
troubled economic and political times. Under the heavy burden of repaying
outstanding loans under the treaty of Versailles, Weimar Germany succumbed to the
National Socialists disguised call for efficiency which included euthanasia for
genetically unfit and extermination of the racially inferior Jews who were regarded as
physically unfit.
In those times of Economic Depression and political upheaval, Nazis promised the
German electorate that they will change German fortunes. In 1933, Jewish
population in Germany was around 0.75%. With the majority being Christian and
Nordic stock whom the Nazis promised a better future, Nazis grabbed power. To
satisfy their hatred of Jews and the Romani people, they tarnished the name of
eugenics. They used the false premise that jews were less efficient than the nordic
stock. They stole jobs from jews.
In the end they used sterilisation and ethnic cleansing techniques in the name of
eugenics. As we will see comparing efficiency and eugenics is like comparing apples
and oranges.
Old Eugenics was based on maximising efficiency funded by the richest and most
powerful people like the Kellogg family, Harriman family, Carnegie foundation and
the richest man of those times John D. Rockefeller supported by a plethora of Nobel
laureates like Graham Bell. Where they did go wrong was that they were only aiming
for efficiency not improving quality of human life.
Efficiency was needed in those times of Economic Depression. But reducing humans
to efficient creatures makes them look like robots with no feelings, rights or solidarity.
Science of eugenics was not very developed compared today's world. So, it resulted
in anti-immigration policies based on prejudices and horrendous practices. Old
Eugenics seemed to be authoritarian and dystopian.

6. Aim of eugenics is to increase efficiency as its most opponents argue. It may
increase efficiency but it is not meant for that. It is like saying the education system is
meant only to make efficient robots who have no individualism. Schools do have a
role to produce responsible citizens and better workers. But it is also meant to create
individuals who have freedom, justice, and equality as its pillars. Eugenics doesn't
only make capable individuals but also smarter that is morally responsible people
who will take care of the weak and disadvantaged class of people.
We do not seek to create that world of racism and scientific fiction rather the focus is
individual choice. It is independent of nation, race and creed. It is based on what the
parents think of abilities that make a better life for their child. New Eugenics is liberal
and utopian. It is distinctively pro-choice and based on state neutrality. New
eugenics is not about sterilisation and incarceration of the weak and disabled but
rather the ability to be help the unborn live a free and dignified life by altering their
genes before their birth.
Racism or scientific racism in choosing the right genes may creep in parents' minds.
For example, fair skin and blonde hair which may completely unresemble the parents
making it more of an appearance spectacle. But these are not we strive for. If we
stick to our definition of smarter, healthier and stronger these trivial but nonetheless
essential outward features should not be open to gene modification. This is because
it essentially breaks the bond between a mother and a child as well as promotes
racism and more importantly loss of personal identity.
It essentially entails trans-humanism that is to rationally improve a man’s life.
Evolution is a process of nature that selectively chooses the fitter individual from a
group of individuals. It may be by greater breeding of the superior ones or the death
of the inferior ones. Whether we like it or not, evolution is still happening and we
cannot stop it. We, ourselves, are the product of evolution. Rejecting eugenics on the
premise that we will not remain humans is like if we considered that the ape not
evolve. But it leads us to the question of what is to be human? We consider
ourselves to be the top of pyramid of the living kingdom but simply forget the fragility
of our body. To evolve is what we are doing unconsciously since early history. We
discovered fire, invented language, built farms in the process making our next
generation better than the previous one. Eugenics also does the same.
When we offer free choices to parents. They are as free as the brand of T-shirt we
buy or the kind of video games we play liable to bias by the society as well as within
our economic limits. It may lead to commercialisation or a genetic supermarket which
is definitely probable as we live in a capitalist world but it is the same as today's
inequality when we see that rich parents can afford a holistic and world class school
but poor kids don't have education. The greatest risk though if they are born very
unequal like a superman or the creation of a all-new different sub-species. Thus we
must reach a balance and this balance changes as inequality between individual
goes down. We should not be petrified but be bold as science can be used for both
good or bad deeds.
Bad consequences can be disastrous to mankind. It may result in our degradation by
the better sub-species to animals not like the way whites treated blacks without any

7. concrete reason of superiority but the way humans have always treated plants and
animals, that is, only for benefit. But this henceforth called over-man evolved from
man will have higher intelligence and may have greater philosophical depth. So if the
greatest minds of humans preached equality of consideration to even plants and
animals ,rest assured, we can expect them to at least consider us equally. Hence
the premise that the over-man may annihilate us rests on false ones.
The suspicion of feminists that this may lead to abuse, commodification of women's
bodies is unfounded because gene modification doesn't depend on the female
considered. Fragmentation by IVF used is also cited as detrimental. But we cannot
do much as females are considered by nature to carry and maintain babies during
their pregnancy. As medical science progresses maybe we will be able to create
artificial babies which doesn’t include gestation of females. But its morality is not
what we are discussing here.
Reproductive freedom is an essential right of a human. The parents are the primary
enhancers of an individual. In today’s times even it is correct. They help the child to
walk and talk. They carry the burden of raising the child. They finance and carry him
through to adulthood. It is then their decision to what their child is capable of. It is
therefore important to allow individuals to create their own make-up of what is a good
life and also learn from their mistakes as a normal path to meaning of life takes.
People arguing that present research in eugenics to establish the fact that genes can
be modified to make a new breed of over-men is miniscule and there is no point in
wasting our resources and investing in social sectors fail to understand the potential
and its great benefits. It is like saying that we should not invest in space technology
because poor kids are still starving or there is no point in studying philosophy since
we will never know the meaning of life.
Religious leaders and conservatives make the observation that eugenics is like
playing with God or it should be left to God which we find without logic. When Galileo
said that Earth revolved around the Sun, the priests put him on a death sentence
because he was from their point of view a heretic for believing something different. In
short, the morals and truth of today maybe immoral and lies tomorrow.
We have a moral duty to study eugenics and apply it because it leads to betterment
of our society, more equality of choices, greater freedom of an individual and raising
the dignity of an individual.
AGAINST
A parent-child relation is unique. Parents love their child regardless of his/her
abilities and characteristics. This relationship is unaffected (to a large extent) by the
paths the child chooses in life. A child has freedom to be who he wants to be and he
knows that his parents would always be there for him. Eugenics twists that concept
and makes it something perverted. A child tailor made by parents to excel at
something has the decision taken away from him to choose his own path. Children

8. would become an extension of the parents’ will rather than their own independent
individuals.
It might be argued that the decisions the parents would take would be for the good of
their child, to avoid their suffering or prevent failures but it is also true that a human
beings are a sum of their experiences, both good and bad. The character
development of a person comes from both successes and failures and parents’
trying to shield their child from failure would stunt their emotional and character
growth.
By considering the child as an investment or product and trying to improvising it at
every stage we will erode the norm of unconditional love. We will rule out emotions.
If we want everything perfect, then this loses the sense of being human, to improve
and to learn.
Secondly, the human race is diverse because of the diversity of the parents we have.
People are interested in the different abilities, skills, capacities, perspectives,
paradigms, ideas, feelings, emotions, mood, opinions, positions, attitudes, beliefs,
assumptions about what's real, ego involvements, values - assumptions about what's
good or important, dreams, visions, desires, wishes, connections, resources, habits,
lifestyles, cognitive styles, ways of sensing and knowing the world, communication
styles, stories, histories, myths (both personal and collective/group), experience -
capacities developed through life, stages of development, responses - how they
respond to what's going on or what's being talked about, tolerance levels, physical
appearances, roles - in society, in the group, in some narrative, families - what was
their family of origin like, education - both formal and informal, past and ongoing,
information - info they have, and their relationship to information as such, health,
status - in society, in the immediate group or relationship and much, much more
But if we control the new generation of human race genetically it eliminates diversity
and creates a unified type of race that is deemed perfect and superior.
This uniformity is a problem, both from biological perspective and societal one. Same
widespread physiological structures would make humankind extremely susceptible to
diseases caused by any new infections. It has the potential to wipe out the whole
human race in one fell swipe. The Great Irish Potato Famine, which led to the
suffering of hundreds of thousands of people was caused because of two kinds of
uniformities only – one, the potato strains used were same all over and same
infection was able to spread and two, a large amount of population depended only
on potatoes as their staple diet.
The uniformity of ideas is even more threatening. Ideas and societies evolve when
faced with opposition. They change to accommodate new concepts and include new
voices. The uniformity of thoughts would negate any kind of discussions as people
would always agree with each other. Of course, this would reduce conflicts but it
would also lead to a form of stagnation of evolution of human society.
Moreover this new technology, if accepted and used, will be costly and hence only a
small section of the society will be able to afford it and hence this will create extreme
discrimination because the natural born babies will be considered inferior to the who
are engineered with healthier bodies, smarter mind and better looks. This would only

9. further the divide between rich and poor as the rich would be able to adopt eugenics
to further improve themselves and the poor would be left to fend for themselves in an
increasingly competitive world where they are even genetically outclassed by their
competition, let alone by upbringing and access to resources. It would reinstate the
race based division where one section of humanity would be considered better than
the other with the added feature of it being true this time from the genetic
perspective.
Artificial selection has its dark foundations rooted in the eugenics program of the
Nazis. Even if future eugenics program may be done with the best of intentions, it will
always be influenced by the subjective beliefs of those in power – the deciding body
that determines what traits are desirable and undesirable.
Eugenics does have some benefits, but as an infant technology, it is has risks and
prone to costly mistakes at the expense of actual humans. Artificial selection like
eugenics is doubtful because no one has ever succeeded at manipulating or taming
nature. But when the time comes that man perfects eugenics and decides to
embrace it, man also needs to tame himself to use it for good, and good only.
References:
1. Garland E. Allen , “The social and economic origins of genetic determinism: a case history of the
American Eugenics Movement, 1900–1940 and its lessons for today” , Genetica, June 1997,
Volume 99, Issue 2, pp 77-88.
2. Allen, G. E. (2011), Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics, 1910–1945. Annals of Human
Genetics, 75: 314–325.
3. Raz, A. E. (2009), Eugenic utopias/dystopias, reprogenetics, and community genetics. Sociology of Health
& Illness, 31: 602–616.
4. Sarah chan, “Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People by John Harris Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA “, Science and society, EMBO Rep. Mar 2008, 9(3): 227.
5. Linda MacDonald Glenn, “Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering and Transgenics”, 2013, American
Institute of Biological Sciences , http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotechnology/glenn.html#educator