Can ‘eugenics’ be defended?

Monash Bioethics Review
Walter Veit1, Jonathan Anomaly2, Nicholas Agar3, Peter Singer4, Diana S. Fleischman5, Francesca Minerva6
1University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA
3Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
4Princeton University, Princeton, USA
5University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
6University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Tóm tắt

AbstractIn recent years, bioethical discourse around the topic of ‘genetic enhancement’ has become increasingly politicized. We fear there is too much focus on the semantic question of whether we should call particular practices and emerging bio-technologies such as CRISPR ‘eugenics’, rather than the more important question of how we should view them from the perspective of ethics and policy. Here, we address the question of whether ‘eugenics’ can be defended and how proponents and critics of enhancement should engage with each other.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Agar, N. 1998. Liberal Eugenics. Public Affairs Quarterly 12 (2): 137–155.

Agar, N. 2004. Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. New Jersey: Wiley.

Agar, N. 2019. Why we should defend gene editing as eugenics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 28 (1): 9–19.

Anomaly, J. 2018. Defending eugenics: From cryptic choice to conscious selection. Monash Bioethics Review 35 (1–4): 24–35.

Anomaly, J. 2020. Creating future people: The ethics of genetic enhancement. London: Routledge.

Anomaly, J. 2021. Race, Eugenics, and the Holocaust. In Bioethics and the Holocaust, ed. Stacy Gallin and Ira Bedzow. New York: Springer.

Anomaly, J., C. Gyngell, and J. Savulescu. 2020. Great Minds Think Different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing. Bioethics 34: 81–89.

Brock, D. 2005. Shaping future children. Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (4): 377–398.

Buchanan, A., and R. Powell. 2011. Breaking evolution’s chains: The prospect of deliberate genetic enhancement. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 36 (1): 6–27.

Buchanan, A., et al. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Camporesi, S. 2014. From bench to bedside, to track & field: The context of enhancement and its ethical relevance. San Francisco: University of California Medical Humanities Press.

Cavaliere, G. 2018. Looking into the shadow: the eugenics argument in debates on reproductive technologies and practices. Monash Bioethics Review 36: 1–22.

Glover, J. 2006. Choosing children: Genes, disability, and design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gyngell, C., and M. Selgelid. 2016. Twenty-First Century Eugenics. In The Oxford Handbook of Reproductive Ethics, ed. L. Francis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Harris, J. 1992. Wonderwoman & Superman: Ethics & Human Biotechnology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Harris, J. 2007. Enhancing Evolution. Princeton University Press.

Katz, S. 2020. Why Deaf People Oppose Gene Editing to ‘Cure’ Deafness. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/why-deaf-people-oppose-using-gene-editing-to-cure-deafness. Last Accessed: March 3, 2021.

Kevles, D. 1985. In the Name of Eugenics. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf Press.

Kitcher, K. 1997. The Lives to Come: The Genetic Revolution and the Human Possibilities. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Levine, P. 2017. Eugenics: a very short introduction, vol. 495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

MacKellar, C., and C. Bechtel. 2016. The Ethics of the New Eugenics. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.

Savulescu, J. 2001. Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics 15 (5): 413–426.

Savulescu, J. 2009. Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology, 417–430.

Selgelid, M. 2014. Moderate Eugenics and Human Enhancement. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy 2014 (17): 3–12.

Singer, P. 2001. Response to Mark Kuczewski. American Journal of Bioethics 1 (3): 55–56.

Singer, P. 2003. Shopping at the genetic supermarket. In Asian Bioethics in the 21st Century, ed. S.Y. Song, Y.M. Koo, and D.R.J. Macer, 309–331. Tsukuba: Eubios Ethics Institute 2003.

Veit, W. 2018. Cognitive Enhancement and the Threat of Inequality. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement 2: 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0108-x.

Veit, W. 2018. Procreative Beneficence and Genetic Enhancement. Kriterion—Journal of Philosophy 32 (1): 75–92. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11026.89289.

Veit, W. 2018b. Enhancement Technologies and Inequality. In:Saborido, C., Oms, S. & González de Prado, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the IX Conference of the Spanish Society of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: 471–476. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21932.08326.

Veit, W. and Browning, H. 2020. Two Kinds of Conceptual Engineering. Preprint. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17452/

Veit, W., B.D. Earp, N. Faber, N. Bostrom, J. Caouette, A. Mannino, L. Caviola, A. Sandberg, and J. Savulescu. 2020. Recognizing the Diversity of Cognitive Enhancements. AJOB Neuroscience 11 (4): 250–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2020.1830878.

Wilkinson, S. 2008. ‘Eugenics Talk’ and the Language of Bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (6): 467–471.

Wilson, R. 2019. Eugenics Undefended. Monash Bioethics Review 37 (12): 68–75.

Yeh, W.H., O. Shubina-Oleinik, J. Levy, B. Pan, G. Newby, M. Wornow, and D. Liu. 2020. In vivo base editing restores sensory transduction and transiently improves auditory function in a mouse model of recessive deafness. Science Translational Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aay9101.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Monash Bioethics Review

Thông tin tác giả