Eugenics Explained

Eugenics (;)[1] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2] [3] Historically, eugenicists have altered various human gene frequencies by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups purported to be inferior or promoting that of those purported to be superior.[4]

The contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[5] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia,[6] and most European countries (e.g. Sweden and Germany). In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock.

While it originated as a progressive social movement,[7] [8] [9] [10] in contemporary usage, the term is closely associated with scientific racism.[11]

Historically, the idea of eugenics has been used to argue for a broad array of practices ranging from prenatal care for mothers deemed genetically desirable to the forced sterilization and murder of those deemed unfit. To population geneticists, the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent."[12] Debate as to what exactly counts as eugenics continues today.[13] Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with factors of measured intelligence that often correlated strongly with social class.

Common distinctions

The aforementioned eugenic programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction.[14]

In other words, positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged, for example, the eminently intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.[15] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning. Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women deemed by the state to be fit.[16]

As opposed to "euthenics"

Historical eugenics

See main article: History of eugenics.

Academic origins

See also: Galton Laboratory and Eugenics Record Office. The term eugenics and its modern field of study were first formulated by Francis Galton in 1883,[17] [18] [19] directly drawing on the recent work delineating natural selection by his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[20] [21] He published his observations and conclusions chiefly in his influential book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. Galton himself defined it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[22] The first to systematically apply Darwinism theory to human relations, Galton believed that various desirable human qualities were also hereditary ones, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.[23] And it should also be noted that many of the early geneticists were not themselves Darwinians.

Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from various sources.[24] Organizations were formed to win public support for and to sway opinion towards responsible eugenic values in parenthood, including the British Eugenics Education Society of 1907 and the American Eugenics Society of 1921. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals.[25] In 1909, the Anglican clergymen William Inge and James Peile both wrote for the Eugenics Education Society. Inge was an invited speaker at the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which was also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Patrick Joseph Hayes.

Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented by state-level legislators in the early 1900s.[26] Eugenic policies also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[27] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[28] Brazil,[29] Canada,[30] Japan and Sweden.

Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed eugenics as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[31] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics").

In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, the Cold Spring Harbor Carnegie Institution for Experimental Evolution, and the Eugenics Record Office. Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilization laws. In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness. Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races.

Many leading British politicians subscribed to the theories of eugenics. Winston Churchill supported the British Eugenics Society and was an honorary vice president for the organization. Churchill believed that eugenics could solve "race deterioration" and reduce crime and poverty.[32] [33] [34]

As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century, when it was practiced around the world and promoted by governments, institutions, and influential individuals. Many countries enacted[35] various eugenics policies, including: genetic screenings, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, ultimately culminating in genocide. By 2014, gene selection (rather than "people selection") was made possible through advances in genome editing,[36] leading to what is sometimes called new eugenics, also known as "neo-eugenics", "consumer eugenics", or "liberal eugenics"; which focuses on individual freedom and allegedly pulls away from racism, sexism or a focus on intelligence.

Early opposition

Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,[37] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland. Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils,[38] and Franz Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly)[39] were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement.

Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.[40] Other biologists who were themselves eugenicists, such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, however, also expressed skepticism in the belief that sterilization of "defectives" (i.e. a purely negative eugenics) would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.[41]

Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations, but accepted isolating people with hereditary diseases so as not to let them reproduce.[42] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[43] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii. In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."[44]

In fact, more generally, "[m]uch of the opposition to eugenics during that era, at least in Europe, came from the right." The eugenicists' political successes in Germany and Scandinavia were not at all matched in such countries as Poland and Czechoslovakia, even though measures had been proposed there, largely because of the Catholic church's moderating influence.[45]

Concerns over human devolution

Dysgenics

North American eugenics

Eugenics in Mexico

Nazism and the decline of eugenics

See also: Nazi eugenic, Racial hygiene, Life unworthy of life and Scientific racism. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler had praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in German: [[Mein Kampf]] in 1925 and emulated eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States once he took power. Some common early 20th century eugenics methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", and therefore led to segregation, institutionalization, sterilization, and even mass murder. The Nazi policy of identifying German citizens deemed mentally or physically unfit and then systematically killing them with poison gas, referred to as the Aktion T4 campaign, is understood by historians to have paved the way for the Holocaust.[46] [47] [48] By the end of World War II, many eugenics laws were abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany.[49] H. G. Wells, who had called for "the sterilization of failures" in 1904,[50] stated in his 1940 book The Rights of Man: Or What Are We Fighting For? that among the human rights, which he believed should be available to all people, was "a prohibition on mutilation, sterilization, torture, and any bodily punishment".[51] After World War II, the practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a national, ethnical, racial or religious] group" fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[52] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims "the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".[53]

Modern eugenics

See also: New eugenics.

Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the beginning of the 21st century have raised numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, have argued that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics.[54] This view was shared by then-White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products".[55] In a similar spirit, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements. However, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who do not want, or cannot afford, the technology.[56] Before any of these technological breakthroughs, however, prenatal screening has long been called by some a contemporary and highly prevalent form of eugenics because it may lead to selective abortions of fetuses with undesirable traits.[57]

In Singapore

See main article: Population control in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, actively promoted eugenics as late as 1983.[58] In 1984, Singapore began providing financial incentives to highly educated women to encourage them to have more children. For this purpose was introduced the "Graduate Mother Scheme" that incentivized graduate women to get married as much as the rest of their populace.[59] The incentives were extremely unpopular and regarded as eugenic, and were seen as discriminatory towards Singapore's non-Chinese ethnic population. In 1985, the incentives were partly abandoned as ineffective, while the government matchmaking agency, the Social Development Network, remains active.[60] [61] [62]

Contested scientific status

One general concern that many bring to the table, is that the reduced genetic diversity some argue to be a likely feature of long-term, species-wide eugenics plans,[63] could eventually result in inbreeding depression, increased spread of infectious disease,[64] [65] and decreased resilience to changes in the environment.

Arguments for scientific validity

See also: Selective breeding, De novo domestication, List of domesticated animals, List of domesticated plants and Self-domestication. In his original lecture "Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics", Karl Pearson claimed that everything concerning eugenics fell into the field of medicine.[66] Similarly apologetic, Czech-American Aleš Hrdlička, head of the American Anthropological Association from 1925 to 1926 and "perhaps the leading physical anthropologist in the country at the time"[67] posited that its ultimate aim "is that it may, on the basis of accumulated knowledge and together with other branches of research, show the tendencies of the actual and future evolution of man, and aid in its possible regulation or improvement. The growing science of eugenics will essentially become applied anthropology."[68]

More recently, prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated of the matter:

The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons.[69]

Scientifically possible and already well-established, heterozygote carrier testing is used in the prevention of autosomal recessive disorders, allowing couples to determine if they are at risk of passing various hereditary defects onto a future child.[70] [71] There are various examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not negatively affecting the heterozygote carriers of those diseases themselves. The elevated prevalence of various genetically transmitted diseases among Ashkenazi Jew populations (e.g. per Tay–Sachs, cystic fibrosis, Canavan's disease and Gaucher's disease), has been markedly decreased in more recent cohorts by the widespread adoption of genetic screening[72] (cf. also Dor Yeshorim).

Objections to scientific validity

Amanda Caleb, Professor of Medical Humanities at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, says "Eugenic laws and policies are now understood as part of a specious devotion to a pseudoscience that actively dehumanizes to support political agendas and not true science or medicine."[73]

The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based on genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. He demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) with white eyes from a family with red eyes, demonstrating that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance. Additionally, Morgan criticized the view that certain traits, such as intelligence and criminality, were hereditary because these traits were subjective.[74]

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits, an example being phenylketonuria, which is a human disease that affects multiple systems but is caused by one gene defect.[75] Andrzej Pękalski, from the University of Wroclaw, argues that eugenics can cause harmful loss of genetic diversity if a eugenics program selects a pleiotropic gene that could possibly be associated with a positive trait. Pękalski uses the example of a coercive government eugenics program that prohibits people with myopia from breeding but has the unintended consequence of also selecting against high intelligence since the two go together.[76]

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology, at this point there is no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Some conditions such as sickle-cell disease and cystic fibrosis respectively confer immunity to malaria and resistance to cholera when a single copy of the recessive allele is contained within the genotype of the individual, so eliminating these genes is undesirable in places where such diseases are common.[77] Such cases in which, furthermore, even individual organisms' massive suffering or even death due to the odd 25 percent of homozygotes ineliminable by natural section under a Mendelian pattern of inheritance may be justified for the greater ecological good that is conspecifics incur a greater so-called heterozygote advantage in turn.[78]

Edwin Black, journalist, historian, and author of War Against the Weak, argues that eugenics is often deemed a pseudoscience because what is defined as a genetic improvement of a desired trait is a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined through objective scientific inquiry. Indeed, the most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. Historically, this aspect of eugenics is often considered to be tainted with scientific racism and pseudoscience.[79] Regarding the lasting controversy above, himself citing recent scholarship,[80] [81] historian of science Aaron Gillette notes that:

Others take a more nuanced view. They recognize that there was a wide variety of eugenic theories, some of which were much less race- or class-based than others. Eugenicists might also give greater or lesser acknowledgment to the role that environment played in shaping human behavior. In some cases, eugenics was almost imperceptibly intertwined with health care, child care, birth control, and sex education issues. In this sense, eugenics has been called, "a 'modern' way of talking about social problems in biologizing terms".'[82]

Indeed, granting that the historical phenomenon of eugenics was that of a pseudoscience, Gilette further notes that this derived chiefly from its being "an epiphenomenon of a number of sciences, which all intersected at the claim that it was possible to consciously guide human evolution."

Contested ethical status

Contemporary ethical opposition

See also: Larry Arnhart and Leon Kass. In a book directly addressed at socialist eugenicist J.B.S. Haldane and his once-influential Daedalus, Betrand Russell, had one serious objection of his own: eugenic policies might simply end up being used to reproduce existing power relations “rather than to make men happy.”[83]

Environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued against germinal choice technology and other advanced biotechnological strategies for human enhancement. He writes that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome with technology. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, he argues, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish as examples.[84]

The threat of perfection

Contemporary ethical advocacy

See also: Perfectionism (philosophy). Some, for example Nathaniel C. Comfort of Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making process from the state to patients and their families.[85] Comfort suggests that "the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise."[86] Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral.[87]

In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.[88]

In his book A Theory of Justice (1971), American philosopher John Rawls argued that "[o]ver time a society is to take steps to preserve the general level of natural abilities and to prevent the diffusion of serious defects".[89] The original position, a hypothetical situation developed by Rawls, has been used as an argument for negative eugenics.[90] [91] Accordingly, some morally support germline editing precisely because of its capacity to (re)distribute such Rawlsian primary goods.[92] [93]

Status quo bias and the reversal test

See main article: Status quo bias.

The utilitarian perspective of Procreative Beneficence

See also: Eradication of suffering.

Problematizing the therapy-enhancement distinction

In science fiction

See also: Speculative evolution, Evolution in fiction and Genetics in fiction. The novel Brave New World by the English author Aldous Huxley (1931), is a dystopian social science fiction novel which is set in a futuristic World State, whose citizens are environmentally engineered into an intelligence-based social hierarchy.

Various works by the author Robert A. Heinlein mention the Howard Foundation, a group which attempts to improve human longevity through selective breeding.

Among Frank Herbert's other works, the Dune series, starting with the eponymous 1965 novel, describes selective breeding by a powerful sisterhood, the Bene Gesserit, to produce a supernormal male being, the Kwisatz Haderach.[94]

The Star Trek franchise features a race of genetically engineered humans which is known as "Augments", the most notable of them is Khan Noonien Singh. These "supermen" were the cause of the Eugenics Wars, a dark period in Earth's fictional history, before they were deposed and exiled. They appear in many of the franchise's story arcs, most frequently, they appear as villains.[95]

The film Gattaca (1997) provides a fictional example of a dystopian society that uses eugenics to decide what people are capable of and their place in the world. The title alludes to the letters G, A, T and C, the four nucleobases of DNA, and depicts the possible consequences of genetic discrimination in the present societal framework. Relegated to the role of a cleaner owing to his genetically projected death at age 32 due to a heart condition (being told: "The only way you'll see the inside of a spaceship is if you were cleaning it”), the protagonist observes enhanced astronauts as they are demonstrating their superhuman athleticism. Nonetheless, against mere uniformity being the movies key theme, it may be highlighted[96] that it also includes a twelve fingered concert pianist nonetheless taken to be highly esteemed. Even though it was not a box office success, it was critically acclaimed and it is said to have crystallized the debate over human genetic engineering in the public consciousness.[97] [98] As to its accuracy, its production company, Sony Pictures, consulted with a gene therapy researcher and prominent critic of eugenics known to have stated that "[w]e should not step over the line that delineates treatment from enhancement",[99] W. French Anderson, to ensure that the portrayal of science was realistic. Disputing their success in this mission, Philim Yam of Scientific American called the film "science bashing" and Nature's Kevin Davies called it a "surprisingly pedestrian affair", while molecular biologist Lee Silver described its extreme determinism as "a straw man".[100] [101] In an even more pointed critique, in his 2018 book Blueprint, the behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin writes that while Gattaca warned of the dangers of genetic information being used by a totalitarian state, genetic testing could also favor better meritocracy in democratic societies which already administer a variety of standardized tests to select people for education and employment. He suggests that polygenic scores might supplement testing in a manner that is essentially free of biases.[102] Along similar lines, in the 2004 book Citizen Cyborg,[103] democratic transhumanist James Hughes had already argued against what he considers to be "professional fearmongers", stating of the movie's premises:

  1. Astronaut training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons;
  2. In the United States, people are already being screened by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease, for actuarial purposes;
  3. Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society should simply develop genetic information privacy laws, such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination. Enforcing these would not be very hard once a system for reporting and penalties is in place.

Further reading

External links

Notes and References

  1. Book: Galton . Francis . Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development . 2002 . Tredoux . Gavan . 17, 30 . what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use.... The investigation of human eugenics – that is, of the conditions under which men of a high type are produced – is at present extremely hampered by the want of full family histories, both medical and general, extending over three or four generations. . 21 July 2023 . Online Galton Archives . 1883.
  2. Web site: Eugenics – African American Studies . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20190624141112/https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780190280024/obo-9780190280024-0029.xml . 24 June 2019 . 25 July 2019 . Oxford Bibliographies . Racially targeted sterilization practices between the 1960s and the present have been perhaps the most common topic among scholars arguing for, and challenging, the ongoing power of eugenics in the United States. Indeed, unlike in the modern period, contemporary expressions of eugenics have met with widespread, thoroughgoing resistance.
  3. Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims . Galton . Francis . 1904 . The American Journal of Sociology . X . 1 . 82 . 10.1038/070082a0 . 1904Natur..70...82. . 1 January 2020 . free . 1 March 2006 . https://web.archive.org/web/20060301165243/http://galton.org/essays/1900-1911/galton-1904-am-journ-soc-eugenics-scope-aims.htm . live . 0028-0836 .
  4. Book: Spektorowski . Alberto . Politics of Eugenics: Productionism, Population, and National Welfare . Ireni-Saban . Liza . 2013 . Routledge . 9780203740231 . London . 24 . As an applied science, thus, the practice of eugenics referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. Galton divided the practice of eugenics into two types—positive and negative—both aimed at improving the human race through selective breeding. . 16 January 2017 . https://web.archive.org/web/20211019203011/https://books.google.com/books?id=zdkdAAAAQBAJ&q=Historically,+the+term+has+referred+to+everything+from+prenatal+care+for+mothers+to+forced+sterilization+and+euthanasia&pg=PA24 . 19 October 2021 . live.
  5. 25054146 . Eugenic Ideas, Political Interests and Policy Variance Immigration and Sterilization Policy in Britain and U.S . 1 January 2001 . World Politics . 10.1353/wp.2001.0003 . 18193564 . 53 . 2 . 237–263. Hansen . Randall . King . Desmond . 19634871.
  6. McGregor . Russell . 2002 . 'Breed out the colour' or the importance of being white . Australian Historical Studies . 33 . 120 . 286–302 . 10.1080/10314610208596220 . 143863018 . 18 February 2021 . 25 February 2021 . https://web.archive.org/web/20210225154624/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10314610208596220 . live.
  7. [Paul, Diane B.]
  8. Book: Goldberg, Jonah . Jonah Goldberg . . 2007 . Doubleday . 9780385511841 . New York.
  9. [Leonard, Thomas C.]
  10. Lucassen, Leo (2010). "A Brave New World: The Left, Social Engineering, and Eugenics in Twentieth-Century Europe." International Review of Social History, 55(2), 265–296. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44583170
  11. Web site: Eugenics . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2022.
  12. Haldane . J. . 1940 . Lysenko and Genetics . live . Science and Society . 4 . 4 . https://web.archive.org/web/20110623073151/http://www.marxists.org/archive/haldane/works/1940s/lysenko.htm . 23 June 2011 . 3 January 2011.
  13. A discussion of the shifting meanings of the term can be found in Book: Paul, Diane . Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present . 1995 . Humanities Press . 9781573923439.
  14. Wilkinson, Stephen A. (2010). "On the distinction between positive and negative eugenics." In Matti Häyry (ed.), Arguments and analysis in bioethics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. pp. 115–128. doi:10.1163/9789042028036_011
  15. Book: Glad, John . John Glad . Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century . 2008 . Hermitage Publishers . 9781557791542.
  16. Book: Pine, Lisa . Nazi Family Policy, 1933–1945 . 1997 . Berg . 9781859739075 . 19 ff . 11 April 2012 . registration.
  17. Book: Galton, Francis . Francis Galton . Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development . . 1883 . London . 199.
  18. Book: James D. . Watson . DNA: The Secret of Life . Berry . Andrew . 2009 . Knopf . 31 August 2017 . https://web.archive.org/web/20210315093939/https://www.amazon.com/DNA-The-Secret-Life-ebook/dp/B001PSEQAG . 15 March 2021 . live.
  19. Galton . Francis . Francis Galton . 1874 . On men of science, their nature and their nurture . live . Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great Britain . 7 . 227–236 . https://web.archive.org/web/20200727115814/https://books.google.com/books?id=_uE-bpGo2N4C&pg=PA227 . 27 July 2020 . 7 June 2020.
  20. Web site: Correspondence between Francis Galton and Charles Darwin . Galton.org . 28 November 2011 . 11 January 2012 . https://web.archive.org/web/20120111120718/http://galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm . live.
  21. Web site: The Correspondence of Charles Darwin . Darwin Correspondence Project . Volume 17: 1869 . University of Cambridge . 28 November 2011 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20120124215918/http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/correspondence-volume-17 . 24 January 2012.
  22. Cited in
  23. Book: Hansen, Randall . Eugenics: Immigration and Asylum from 1990 to Present . 2005 . ABC-CLIO . Gibney . Matthew J. . Eugenics . 23 September 2013 . Hansen . Randall . http://www.credoreference.com/entry/abcmigrate/eugenics.
  24. Allen . Garland E. . Was Nazi eugenics created in the US? . EMBO Reports . 5 . 5 . 451–452 . 2004 . 10.1038/sj.embor.7400158 . 1299061.
  25. Baker . G. J. . Christianity and Eugenics: The Place of Religion in the British Eugenics Education Society and the American Eugenics Society, . Social History of Medicine . 27 . 2 . 2014 . 281–302 . 10.1093/shm/hku008 . 24778464 . 4001825.
  26. Barrett . Deborah . Kurzman . Charles . Globalizing Social Movement Theory: The Case of Eugenics . Theory and Society . 33 . 5 . 487–527 . October 2004 . 10.1023/b:ryso.0000045719.45687.aa . 4144884 . 143618054 . 17 September 2013 . 24 May 2013 . https://web.archive.org/web/20130524163917/http://kurzman.unc.edu/files/2011/06/Barrett_Kurzman_Eugenics.pdf . live . Policy adoption: In the pre–World War I period, eugenic policies were enacted only in the United States, which was both the hotbed of international eugenics activism and unusually decentralized politically, so that sub-national state units could adopt such policies in the absence of central state approval..
  27. Book: Hawkins, Mike . Social Darwinism in European and American Thought . limited . 1997 . Cambridge University Press . 9780521574341 . 62, 292.
  28. The National Office of Eugenics in Belgium . Science . 57 . 1463 . 46 . 12 January 1923 . 10.1126/science.57.1463.46 . 1923Sci....57R..46..
  29. Sales Augusto . dos Santos . Laurence . Hallewell . January 2002 . Historical Roots of the 'Whitening' of Brazil . Latin American Perspectives . 29 . 1 . 61–82 . 3185072 . 10.1177/0094582X0202900104 . 220914100.
  30. Book: McLaren, Angus . Our Own Master Race: Eugenics in Canada, 1885–1945 . Oxford University Press . 1990 . 9780771055447 . registration .
  31. Osborn . Frederick . Frederick Osborn . June 1937 . Development of a Eugenic Philosophy . . 2 . 3 . 389–397 . 10.2307/2084871 . 2084871.
  32. Book: Blom, Philipp . Philipp Blom . The Vertigo Years: Change and Culture in the West, 1900–1914 . 2008 . McClelland & Stewart . Toronto . 9780771016301 . 335–336 .
  33. Jones, S. (1995). The Language of Genes: Solving the Mysteries of Our Genetic Past, Present and Future (New York: Anchor).
  34. King, D. (1999). In the name of liberalism: illiberal social policy in Britain and the United States (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  35. Book: Ridley, Matt . Matt Ridley . Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters . limited . 1999 . HarperCollins . New York . 9780060894085 . 290–291.
  36. Reis . Alex . Hornblower . Breton . Robb . Brett . Tzertzinis . George . 2014 . CRISPR/Cas9 and Targeted Genome Editing: A New Era in Molecular Biology . NEB Expressions . I . 8 July 2015 . 23 June 2015 . https://web.archive.org/web/20150623030918/https://www.neb.com/tools-and-resources/feature-articles/crispr-cas9-and-targeted-genome-editing-a-new-era-in-molecular-biology . live.
  37. Book: Ferrante, Joan . Sociology: A Global Perspective . 2010 . Cengage Learning . 9780840032041 . 259 ff . 7 June 2020 . 1 August 2020 . https://web.archive.org/web/20200801114104/https://books.google.com/books?id=AwnIIXI6y38C&pg=PA259 . live.
  38. Book: Chesterton, G. K.. G. K. Chesterton . Eugenics and Other Evils . 1922 . Cassell and Company .
  39. Book: Turda, Marius . Race, Science and Eugenics in the Twentieth Century . Bashford . Alison . Levine . Philippa . The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics . Oxford University Press . 2010 . 9780199888290 . 72–73.
  40. "Lancelot Hogben, who developed his critique of eugenics and distaste for racism in the period...he spent as Professor of Zoology at the University of Cape Town". Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford; Oxford University Press, 2010 (p. 200)
  41. "Whatever their disagreement on the numbers, Haldane, Fisher, and most geneticists could support Jennings's warning: To encourage the expectation that the sterilization of defectives will solve the problem of hereditary defects, close up the asylums for feebleminded and insane, do away with prisons, is only to subject society to deception". Daniel J. Kevles (1985). In the Name of Eugenics. University of California Press. (p. 166).
  42. Book: Congar, Yves M.-J. . 1953 . The Catholic Church and the Race Question . Paris . UNESCO . 3 July 2015 . 4. The State is not entitled to deprive an individual of his procreative power simply for material (eugenic) purposes. But it is entitled to isolate individuals who are sick and whose progeny would inevitably be seriously tainted. . 4 July 2015 . https://web.archive.org/web/20150704070018/http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0000/000028/002893eo.pdf . live.
  43. Book: The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics . Alison . Bashford . Philippa . Levine . 2010 . Oxford University Press . Google Books . 9780195373141 . 31 December 2018 . 1 August 2020 . https://web.archive.org/web/20200801110400/https://books.google.com/books?id=Ml4vDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA105. live.
  44. Web site: Casti connubii . Pope Pius XI . 15 March 2020 . 10 April 2009 . https://web.archive.org/web/20090410192842/http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html . live.
  45. [Roll-Hansen, Nils]
  46. Book: Longerich, Peter . Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews . . 2010 . 9780192804365 . 179–191.
  47. Book: Burleigh, Michael . Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath . . 2000 . 0415150361 . Bartov . Omer . London . 43–57 . Psychiatry, German Society, and the Nazi "Euthanasia" Programme.
  48. Book: Snyder, Timothy . Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin . . 2010 . 9781441761460 . New York . 256–258.
  49. Book: Black, Edwin . Edwin Black . War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race . Four Walls Eight Windows . 2003 . 9781568582580 .
  50. Book: Turner, Jacky . Animal Breeding, Welfare and Society . . 2010 . 9781844075898 . 296.
  51. Book: Clapham, Andrew . Human Rights: A Very Short Introduction . . 2007 . 9780199205523 . 29–31 .
  52. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such as:
    • Killing members of the group;
    • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    See the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

  53. Web site: Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union . Article 3, Section 2 . 17 September 2013 . 26 October 2013 . https://web.archive.org/web/20131026133612/http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union . live.
  54. Epstein . Charles J. . Is modern genetics the new eugenics? . Genetics in Medicine . 1 November 2003 . 5 . 6 . 469–475 . 10.1097/01.GIM.0000093978.77435.17 . 14614400 . free.
  55. Tania . Simoncelli . Tania Simoncelli . Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis and Selection: From disease prevention to customized conception . Different Takes . 24 . 2003 . 18 September 2013 . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20131018034037/http://genetics.live.radicaldesigns.org/downloads/200303_difftakes_simoncelli.pdf . 18 October 2013.
  56. Web site: International Bioethics Committee . Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights . 2 October 2015 . 22 October 2015 . 27 . The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case. . 8 October 2015 . https://web.archive.org/web/20151008133850/http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233258E.pdf . live.
  57. Thomas . Gareth M. . Rothman . Barbara Katz . April 2016 . Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar?: Disability and the Future of Prenatal Screening . AMA Journal of Ethics . 18 . 4 . 406–415 . 10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.stas1-1604. 27099190 . We argue that prenatal screening (and specifically NIPT) for Down syndrome can be considered a form of contemporary eugenics, in that it effaces, devalues, and possibly prevents the births of people with the condition.. free.
  58. Web site: Chan . Ying-kit . 4 October 2016 . Eugenics in Postcolonial Singapore . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20171008232753/http://www.blynkt.com/issue-1/eugenics-in-postcolonial-singapore . 8 October 2017 . 19 October 2017 . Blynkt.com . Berlin.
  59. See Diane K. Mauzy; Robert Stephen Milne, Singapore politics under the People's Action Party (Routledge, 2002).
  60. Web site: Singapore: Population Control Policies . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20110411115633/http://www.photius.com/countries/singapore/society/singapore_society_population_control_p~11008.html . 11 April 2011 . 11 August 2011 . Library of Congress Country Studies (1989) . Library of Congress.
  61. Jacobson . Mark . January 2010 . The Singapore Solution . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20091220125820/http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/01/singapore/jacobson-text/5 . 20 December 2009 . 26 December 2009 . National Geographic Magazine.
  62. News: Webb. Sara. Pushing for babies: S'pore fights fertility decline. 15 July 2024. Singapore Window. Reuters. 26 April 2006. https://web.archive.org/web/20110716052445/http://www.singapore-window.org/sw06/060426re.htm. 16 July 2011.
  63. Book: Galton, David . David J. Galton . Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century . Abacus . 2002 . 0349113777 . London . 48.
  64. Lively . Curtis M. . June 2010 . The Effect of Host Genetic Diversity on Disease Spread . The American Naturalist . en . 175 . 6 . E149–E152 . 10.1086/652430 . 0003-0147 . 20388005.
  65. King . K. C. . Lively . C. M. . June 2012 . Does genetic diversity limit disease spread in natural host populations? . Heredity . 109 . 4 . 199–203 . 10.1038/hdy.2012.33 . 3464021 . 22713998.
  66. Salgirli . S. G. . July 2011. Eugenics for the doctors: Medicine and social control in 1930s Turkey . Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences . 66 . 3 . 281–312 . 10.1093/jhmas/jrq040 . 20562206 . 205167694.
  67. Degler, C. N. (1991). In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. Oxford University Press., p.44
  68. [Hrdlička, Aleš]
  69. News: From the Afterword . Richard . Dawkins . Richard Dawkins . . Glasgow . 20 November 2006 . 17 October 2013 . 10 May 2014 . https://web.archive.org/web/20140510235345/http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155 . live.
  70. Web site: Heterozygote test / Screening programmes – DRZE . German: Deutsches Referenzzentrum für Ethik in den Biowissenschaften. 19 October 2017 . 7 January 2017 . https://web.archive.org/web/20170107035356/http://www.drze.de/in-focus/predictive-genetic-testing/modules/heterozygote-test-screening-programmes . live.
  71. [Raz, Aviad]
  72. Web site: Fatal Gift: Jewish Intelligence and Western Civilization . https://web.archive.org/web/20090813162344/http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/18624/The_Book_Shelf.html . 13 August 2009.
  73. Book: Caleb, Amanda . 27 January 2023 . 18 February 2023 . The Holocaust: Remembrance, Respect, and Resilience . Eugenics and (Pseudo-) Science . https://psu.pb.unizin.org/holocaust3rs/chapter/1-2-eugenics-and-pseudo-science/ . Pennsylvania State University.
  74. Web site: Social Origins of Eugenics . 19 October 2017 . Eugenicsarchive.org.
  75. Stearns . F. W. . 2010 . One Hundred Years of Pleiotropy: A Retrospective . Genetics . 186 . 3 . 767–773 . 10.1534/genetics.110.122549 . 2975297 . 21062962.
  76. Jones . A. . 2000 . Effect of eugenics on the evolution of populations . European Physical Journal B . 17 . 2 . 329–332 . 2000EPJB...17..329P . 10.1007/s100510070148 . 122344067.
  77. Withrock . Isabelle . Genetic diseases conferring resistance to infectious diseases . Genes & Diseases . 2 . 3 . 247–254 . 2015 . 6150079 . 30258868 . 10.1016/j.gendis.2015.02.008.
  78. [Bostrom, Nick]
  79. News: Worrall . Simon . 24 July 2016 . The Gene: Science's Most Dangerous Idea . dead . https://web.archive.org/web/20170912102002/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/gene-history-siddhartha-mukherjee-science-eugenics/ . 12 September 2017 . 12 September 2017 . National Geographic.
  80. Ladd-Taylor, Molly (2001). "Eugenics, Sterilisation and the Modern Marriage in the USA: The Strange Career of Paul Popenoe". Gender & History 13(2): 298-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0424.00230
  81. Dokötter, Frank (1998). "Race Culture: Recent Perspectives on the History of Eugenics". American Historical Review 103: 467-78
  82. Book: Gillette, Aaron . Eugenics and the nature-nurture debate in the twentieth century . Palgrave Macmillan . 2007 . 1st . New York . 18 June 2024 .
  83. Book: Russell, Bertrand. Political views of Bertrand Russell#Eugenics. Icarus, or, The future of science. 1924. E.P. Dutton & Co.. New York. 5.
  84. Book: McKibben, Bill . Bill McKibben . Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age . Times Books . 2003 . 9780805070965 . 237794777.
  85. The Eugenics Impulse . The Chronicle of Higher Education . Nathaniel . Comfort . Nathaniel C. Comfort. 12 November 2012 . 9 September 2013 . 21 September 2013 . https://web.archive.org/web/20130921085344/http://chronicle.com/article/The-Eugenic-Impulse/135612/ . live.
  86. Book: Comfort, Nathaniel . Nathaniel C. Comfort. The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine . Yale University Press . New Haven . 9780300169911 . 25 September 2012.
  87. Book: Eugenics and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction . Stephen . Wilkinson . Eve . Garrard . Keele University . 2013 . 18 September 2013 . 9780957616004 . 6 November 2015 . https://web.archive.org/web/20151106183611/http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/65644/1/Eugenics_and_the_ethics_of_selective_reproduction_Low_Res_1.pdf . live.
  88. Book: Buchanan . Allen . Brock . Dan W. . Daniels . Norman . Wikler . Daniel . From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice . Cambridge University Press . 2000 . 9780521669771 . 41211380.
  89. Book: Rawls, John . 1999 . 1971 . A theory of justice . revised . Cambridge, Massachusetts . Harvard University Press . 92 . 0674000781 . John Rawls . In addition, it is possible to adopt eugenic policies, more or less explicit. I shall not consider questions of eugenics, confining myself throughout to the traditional concerns of social justice. We should note, though, that it is not in general to the advantage of the less fortunate to propose policies which reduce the talents of others. Instead, by accepting the difference principle, they view the greater abilities as a social asset to be used for the common advantage. But it is also in the interest of each to have greater natural assets. This enables him to pursue a preferred plan of life. In the original position, then, the parties want to insure for their descendants the best genetic endowment (assuming their own to be fixed). The pursuit of reasonable policies in this regard is something that earlier generations owe to later ones, this being a question that arises between generations. Thus over time a society is to take steps at least to preserve the general level of natural abilities and to prevent the diffusion of serious defects..
  90. Shaw, p. 147. Quote: "What Rawls says is that "Over time a society is to take steps to preserve the general level of natural abilities and to prevent the diffusion of serious defects." The key words here are "preserve" and "prevent". Rawls clearly envisages only the use of negative eugenics as a preventive measure to ensure a good basic level of genetic health for future generations. To jump from this to "make the later generations as genetically talented as possible," as Pence does, is a masterpiece of misinterpretation. This, then, is the sixth argument against positive eugenics: the Veil of Ignorance argument. Those behind the Veil in Rawls' original Position would agree to permit negative, but not positive eugenics. This is a more complex variant of the consent argument, as the Veil of Ignorance merely forces us to adopt a position of hypothetical consent to particular principles of justice."
  91. Harding . John R. . 1991 . Beyond Abortion: Human Genetics and the New Eugenics . Pepperdine Law Review . 18 . 3 . 489–491 . 2 June 2016 . Rawls arrives at the difference principle by considering how justice might be drawn from a hypothetical 'original position.' A person in the original position operates behind a 'veil of ignorance' that prevents her from knowing any information about herself such as social status, physical or mental capabilities, or even her belief system. Only from such a position of universal equality can principles of justice be drawn. In establishing how to distribute social primary goods, for example, 'rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth" and self-respect, Rawls determines that a person operating from the original position would develop two principles. First, liberties ascribed to each individual should be as extensive as possible without infringing upon the liberties of others. Second, social primary goods should be distributed to the greatest advantage of everyone and by mechanisms that allow equal opportunity to all. [...] Genetic engineering should not be permitted merely for the enhancement of physical attractiveness because that would not benefit the least advantaged. Arguably, resources should be concentrated on genetic therapy to address disease and genetic defects. However, such a result is not required under Rawls' theory. Genetic enhancement of those already intellectually gifted, for example, might result in even greater benefit to the least advantaged as a result of the gifted individual's improved productivity. Moreover, Rawls asserts that using genetic engineering to prevent the most serious genetic defects is a matter of intergenerational justice. Such actions are necessary in terms of what the present generation owes to later generations. . 11659992 . 6 October 2014 . https://web.archive.org/web/20141006102903/http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1677&context=plr . live.
  92. Allhoff, Fritz (2005). "Germ-line genetic enhancement and Rawlsian primary goods." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (1):39-56.doi:10.1353/ken.2005.0007
  93. Pugh, Jonathan (2015). "Autonomy, Natality and Freedom: A Liberal Re-examination of Habermas in the Enhancement Debate." Bioethics, 29(3), 145–152. doi:10.1111/bioe.12082
  94. Web site: Koboldt . Daniel . 29 August 2017 . The Science of Sci-Fi: How Science Fiction Predicted the Future of Genetics . live . https://web.archive.org/web/20180719233445/https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/16677-genetics-science-fiction-future . 19 July 2018 . 19 July 2018 . Outer Places.
  95. Web site: Edwards . Richard . Star Trek: Strange New Worlds: Augments, Illyrians and the Eugenics Wars . Space.com . 27 June 2023 . 29 May 2024.
  96. Web site: Ebert . Roger . October 24, 1997 . Gattaca . rogerebert.com.
  97. News: Jabr . Ferris . Are We Too Close to Making Gattaca a Reality? . San Francisco Chronicle . 2013 . 30 April 2014 . 9 December 2019 . https://web.archive.org/web/20191209172904/https://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Gattaca-a-Not-So-Perfect-Specimen-Hawke-only-2799938.php . live.
  98. Book: Pope . Marcia . McRoberts . Richard . Cambridge Wizard Student Guide Gattaca . . 2003 . 0521536154.
  99. [William French Anderson|Anderson, W. French]
  100. News: Zimmer . Carl . November 10, 2008 . Now: The Rest of the Genome . The New York Times.
  101. Kirby . David A. . July 2000 . The New Eugenics in Cinema: Genetic Determinism and Gene Therapy in "GATTACA" . Science Fiction Studies . 27 . 2 . 193–215 . 4240876.
  102. Book: Plomin, Robert . Robert Plomin. Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are . 13 November 2018 . . 9780262039161 . 180–181 . 31 October 2020 . 15 May 2022 . https://web.archive.org/web/20220515022228/https://books.google.com/books?id=Vrt2DwAAQBAJ&q=blueprint+robert+plomin+%22gattaca%22&pg=PA180 . live.
  103. Book: Hughes . James . James Hughes (sociologist) . Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Human of the Future . 2004 . Westview Press . 0-8133-4198-1.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Eugenics".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.