Abstract
This chapter introduces the philosophical foundations of eugenics as a starting point, because this supports the reasoning that proposes a form or regulatory or governance framework for pre-implantation genetic interventions. Through a historical exploration of the laws of human inheritability of conditions, and the rise of national eugenic policies, the premise made here is that a wholesale free-for-all use of emerging biomedical technologies, particularly where those technologies involve possibilities to intervene into the human genome, may be interpreted to result in eugenic consequences though a process of selection, and also impacts the operability of contemporary laws. Even if the principle of autonomy is respected, as it is in the case of a new form of “liberal eugenics”, I provide three main reasons why this concept is flawed, and why a more meaningful capitulation of the effects of genetic interventions particularly in the scope of human reproduction must be very carefully evaluated. Instead, I advance the call for a reinterpretation of eugenics in light of embryo selection in biomedical and reproductive technologies; founded upon limits that do not encroach on another individual’s rights and liberties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This understanding of ‘selection’ lies at the heart of this book, and the discussion why pre-implantation genetic interventions may be supported or opposed. The embryo selection phenomenon (which is a necessary part of PGD) is one of the key components in various polarizing debates.
- 2.
Agar (1998), p. 137.
- 3.
Habermas (2003), https://philpapers.org/rec/HABTFO-2.
- 4.
Rorty (2003).
- 5.
Groll and Lott (2015), p. 623.
- 6.
Thomas (2017).
- 7.
Handyside (2010), p. 978.
- 8.
The beginning of the revolutionary eugenics-based programmes in North America was initially targeted against Asian migrants, specifically the Chinese. This resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882 and 1902.
- 9.
During World War II, Hitler’s Nazi regime carried out what is now known as one of the deadliest genocides in history, termed “The Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, where the regime began a series of broad acts of oppression, violence and murders for the extermination of the Jewish people specifically, but also included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and prisoners of war, other Slavs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled.
- 10.
Singapore’s initial eugenics-based program was introduced in 1984 and had the goal of increasing fertility of university-educated women and the provision of major subsidies for voluntary sterilization of poor and uneducated parents, in a bid to dramatically increase population growth in tandem with its phenomenal socio-economic growth. This initial eugenics program has since been modified.
- 11.
The key provisions of the Bill called for the “termination of pregnancy if the fetus is suffering from a genetic disease of a serious nature or the fetus has any other defects of a serious nature.”
- 12.
Kango-Singh (2010).
- 13.
Selgelid (2014), p. 3.
- 14.
Kango-Singh (2010).
- 15.
Chesterton (2000).
- 16.
Sándor (2015), p. 355.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
Galton (2002), p. 78.
- 19.
Kevles (1999), p. 435.
- 20.
Kango-Singh (2010), p. 81.
- 21.
Encyclopedia of Bioethics (3rd edn, vol. 2, Thomson Gale 2004), p. 848.
- 22.
Kango-Singh (2010), p. 84.
- 23.
Ibid 85.
- 24.
Ibid.
- 25.
Some prominent supporters of the American eugenics programme included renowned biologist, Charles Davenport, psychologist Henry Goddard, and lawyer and conservationist Madison Grant, amongst others. The American eugenics programme also received immense funding from foundations such as the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation.
- 26.
Mendel, J.G. (1866). “Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden”, Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das Jahr, 1865, Abhandlungen: 3–47, [1]. For the English translation, see: Druery, C.T.; Bateson, William (1901). “Experiments in plant hybridization” Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society 26: 1–32.
- 27.
This led to the Human Genome Project, indisputably the largest, internationally-collaborative global scientific and biological project spanning a period of thirteen years, with the aim of completely mapping all the genes of the human genome.
- 28.
Heinemann and Honnefelder (2003), p. 530.
- 29.
- 30.
Ibid.
- 31.
Ibid.
- 32.
Botkin (1998), p. 17.
- 33.
This report was called the “Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeders’ Association to Study and Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population”.
- 34.
The “Better Babies” project in the United States was the idea and culmination of Mary deGormo, who developed the first “Scientific Baby Contest” in Louisiana, complete with grading sheets designed together with a paediatrician, and the traits that were viewed favourably in the contest included physical measurements and measurements of intelligence. The contribution that such contests made to societal development at that point of time was seen as being a form of “social efficiency” movement that advocated and encouraged certain “standardized” aspects of ideal American life.
- 35.
Some of the methods described in this 1911 Treatise report offer a startlingly disturbing glance into the visceral ideals of what is viewed as the perfect human person. It also included several visceral descriptions on how the objectives described in the report could be carried out, including suggestions for the euthanization of ‘imbeciles’, the ‘feeble-minded’ and any other members of the population that were deemed to have defective characteristics; and also the creation of gas chambers to eliminate these people.
- 36.
Galton (2002), p. 91.
- 37.
Ibid 92.
- 38.
In this context, the Aryan race envisaged was one of German descent, heavily influenced the theories of German social Darwinists of the nineteenth century. Social Darwinists attributed both positive and negative stereotypes of ethnic group appearance, behaviour and culture as unchangeable and rooted in biological inheritance, immutable through time and immune to changes in environment, intellectual development or socialization. Therefore, for Hitler’s Nazi regime, the assimilation of a member of one race into another culture or ethnic group was impossible because the original inherited traits could not change, they could only degenerate through race mixing.
- 39.
The American Eugenics Society was established in 1926 for the purpose of promoting awareness of the eugenics programme to the American public. See R. Gur-Arie, American Eugenics Society, The Embryo Project Encyclopaedia, 22 November 2014, https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/american-eugenics-society-1926-1972.
- 40.
Ibid.
- 41.
Lutz Kaelber, ‘Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States’ https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/.
- 42.
Ingram (2003).
- 43.
North Carolina Administration, ‘NC DOA: Welcome to the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims’ https://ncadmin.nc.gov/about-doa/special-programs/welcome-office-justice-sterilization-victims.
- 44.
Portnoy (2015).
- 45.
Lutz Kaelber, ‘Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States’ https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/.
- 46.
Sholley (1951). Please see: the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
- 47.
‘Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/case.html.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
A turn of events much later revealed that Carrie had been raped by her adoptive mother’s nephew, and her family committed Carrie to the institution in the hopes of concealing the rape and resulting shame.
- 50.
Acts of Assembly, Chapter 394, Virginia SB281, Eugenical Sterilization Act of 3/20/1924, p. 569.
- 51.
Virginia Eugenics, https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/VA/VA.html.
- 52.
The Human Genome Project has been, to date, the largest-scale, international collaborative effort in genetics research, whose goal was to map out all the entire genome of a human being. The results of the project has enabled us to now understand the development and function of a human being by reference to the human genome. At the same time, because of the propensity and gravity of this newfound genetic knowledge, care must be taken to take account of any ethical, legal and social implications that results from the use or possible abuse of this vast pool of knowledge.
- 53.
Cohen (2016).
- 54.
‘Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html.
- 55.
From the US constitutional perspective, Miranda v United States 384 U.S. 436 (1966) may be a suitable example as later decisions that continue to cite Miranda have also gone further by endorsing more specificity in the availability of proper legal defense, and good faith loopholes for the police. This is not to say that Miranda is irrelevant, but simply means that its stronghold has now become weakened in light of these later decisions that have broadened the scope of Miranda’s initial holding. The Supreme Court also famously “overruled” itself in Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), by the issuance of its judgment in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S.483 (1954) concerning the issue of racial segregation in schools. No express words were given in these examples as to how the court made a formal declaration of overruling its own previous decisions, but the culminated effect of the later decisions do indicate that a de facto overrule has taken place.
- 56.
Burrus (2011).
- 57.
‘Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html.
- 58.
‘Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html.
- 59.
‘Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/.
- 60.
He states at p. 316, that “marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
- 61.
Franklin (2015).
- 62.
Ibid.
- 63.
Stone et al. (2005), p. 773.
- 64.
Galton (2002), p. 95.
- 65.
Ibid 96.
- 66.
Kater (1987), p. 31.
- 67.
Saetz et al. (1985).
- 68.
Ibid.
- 69.
Galton (2002), p. 97.
- 70.
Hediger (2016), p. 5.
- 71.
Zeidman (2011), p. 696.
- 72.
Kater (1987). In this article, Kater highlights the tremendous challenge in charting the historical perspectives of the Nazi doctors, due particularly to two reasons: one, a lack of resources, documents and files; and secondly, the reluctance of German historians to “probe the more recent past of their professional, because they have been unwilling to come to grips with the moral and ethical problems posed by the perversion of medicine in the Third Reich.”
- 73.
‘Josef Mengele, Angel of Death’ http://www.auschwitz.dk/mengele.htm.
- 74.
IMDb, Science and the Swastika http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808104/.
- 75.
Zeidman (2011).
- 76.
Shuster (1997), p. 1436.
- 77.
World Medical Association (2018).
- 78.
World Bank (2018).
- 79.
Matsubara (1998), p. 187.
- 80.
Ibid.
- 81.
Matsubara (1998).
- 82.
Nature (1998), p. 707.
- 83.
Often touted to be the founding father of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew was Singapore’s first Prime Minister for over 30 years. Under his leadership, Singapore transformed from a third world country to a first world one in an immensely short period of time, gaining a name for itself in the international arena for high-quality education, economic expansion, and financial stability, amongst others, and continues to make its presence felt on the world stage. Lee Kuan Yew passed away in March 2015, and was succeeded by his son, Lee Hsien Loong.
- 84.
Chan (1985), p. 707.
- 85.
Robertson (2010).
- 86.
- 87.
Robertson (2010), p. 1.
- 88.
Ibid 2.
- 89.
Ibid.
- 90.
Matsubara (1998), p. 189.
- 91.
Robertson (2010), p. 3.
- 92.
Watts (2018).
- 93.
Robertson (2010), p. 14.
- 94.
Ibid.
- 95.
Ibid 15.
- 96.
Hovhannisyan (2018), p. 28.
- 97.
Chan (1985), p. 707.
- 98.
Michael D Barr, ‘Lee Kuan Yew: Race, Culture and Genes’ 18.
- 99.
Singapore Democratic Party ‘Eugenics in Singapore’ http://yoursdp.org//news/eugenics_in_singapore/2008-11-09-558.
- 100.
Ganesan (2016).
- 101.
Chan (1985).
- 102.
Yap (2003), pp. 643, 652.
- 103.
Ibid 644.
- 104.
Ibid 652.
- 105.
Tarrant-Cornish (2017).
- 106.
Cyranoski and Reardon (2015).
- 107.
Foley (2018).
- 108.
Briggs (2018).
- 109.
Gabbatis (2018).
- 110.
Cook (2017).
- 111.
Yuehtsen (2010), p. 260.
- 112.
Ibid 261.
- 113.
Ibid.
- 114.
Ibid 262.
- 115.
Pellissier (2015).
- 116.
Habermas (2003).
- 117.
The emphasis of Asian values, on filial piety and the role of parents in a family are ingrained in many Eastern cultures. It is often accepted without question that parents are the main arbiters of determining the best interest of their children. As a product of such an environment myself, it is now interesting to see that these similar values described by Habermas, converge in the determination of our sense of individual autonomy.
- 118.
Positive eugenics refers to the enhancement procedures that take place to heighten or amplify an individual’s genetic make-up, also referred to as a form of enhancement or non-therapeutic treatment in human genetic engineering technologies.
- 119.
Negative eugenics serve a therapeutic purpose (traditionally), for instance, to eradicate diseases or abnormalities in an individual’s genetic makeup by removing the genes that cause a particular problem in the individual.
- 120.
Vetlesen (2005), p. 232.
- 121.
Habermas (2003), p. 40.
- 122.
Ibid 58.
- 123.
Ibid 40.
- 124.
Chesterton (2000).
- 125.
Habermas (2003), p. 32.
- 126.
Barnhart (1997), pp. 417, 422.
- 127.
Ibid.
- 128.
Deppe (2010).
- 129.
Dhammanada (2002), p. 188.
- 130.
Ibid 80. The Theory of Karma is posited as the law of cause and effect; that every action or inaction contributes to a specific outcome.
- 131.
Ibid 98.
- 132.
Barnhart (1997), p. 421.
- 133.
Hsu et al. (2014), p. 1262.
- 134.
It is recognized that CRISPR is still an evolving technology, although it has been preliminarily successful in gene therapy treatments to correct sickle-cell mutation in human cells. In January 2015, researchers in China reported that they had created genetically modified monkeys using CRISPR, raising alarm bells that it is theoretically possible to alter a person’s genome before birth if the changes were made to the germ cells of a prospective parent.
- 135.
The idea of germ line therapy is still a highly controversial topic of discussion among geneticists, bioethicists and members of the medical profession. It involves therapy that targets the germ cells (reproductive cells), either removing or enhancing changes in the DNA, which will then allow for the “correction” of disease-causing gene variants that are certain to be passed down from generation to generation. In effect, germ line therapy manipulates and changes the DNA of basic instruction in a person’s body. Current gene therapy does not involve germ lines, and only targets specific somatic cells for treatment.
- 136.
Botkin (1998), p. 20.
- 137.
Some promising advances using CRISPR has been indicated recently. For example, genetic mutations (for favism and thalassemia) in early embryos have been successful corrected by scientists in China. See https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released/. As recently as August 2017, a team of scientists from the United States and Korea demonstrated promising results using CRISPR to alter genetic mutations relating to a heart condition, in early stage human embryos. See https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170802142844.htm.
- 138.
For instance, in 2016, it was reported that Duke University researchers had successfully (to a certain extent) edited the genes that mutated into Duchenne muscular dystrophy in mice, see: https://gizmodo.com/first-successful-gene-editing-in-live-mammals-brings-us-1750908059 accessed 2 October 2017. Further promise is shown in research experiments conducted in 2017, including gene editing of non-human primates’ embryos (rhesus) by Michigan State University; see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170501112525.htm accessed 2 October 2017; the elimination of the HIV DNA in animal models by researchers in Temple University and University of Pittsburgh, see: https://www.sciencealert.com/a-new-gene-editing-technique-has-eliminated-acute-hiv-infection-in-living-animals accessed 2 October 2017; and also a release of results relating to gene editing of normal human embryos (early embryos) by researchers in China, see: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released/.
- 139.
Yong (2017).
- 140.
Some interesting philosophical viewpoints regarding the premise of the film can be seen here: http://www.philfilms.utm.edu/1/gattaca.htm.
- 141.
Handyside (2010).
- 142.
Agar (1998).
- 143.
Prominent bioconservatives include Leon Kass and Francis Fukuyama; bioconservatists view a post-human state (a state whereby genetic interventions have been embraced completely by individuals) as being degrading, dehumanizing and an affront to human dignity. Often, bioconservatist views are rooted in some form of religious or crypto-religious sentiments that generally condemns the mastery over human nature through the use of genetic engineering technologies. The gist of this condemnation hinges strongly upon the concept of human dignity, which bioconservatists view as an important element of the recognition of individual personhood.
- 144.
Transhumanists embrace the advent of genetic interventions with open arms, believing in the wide use and dissemination of genetic technologies to the public, based purely on each individual’s desires, intention and choice to engage in the use of such technology, whether for enhancement or other therapeutic reasons. The general view held by transhumanists is that the advances of science and technology have made it possible for human nature to be improved, strengthened and enhanced; but transhumanists also strongly campaign for a strong framework and recognition of human rights and individual choices, believing in the evolution and systematic revamp of a social system that metes out understanding and compassion. Julian Savulescu, for example, a prominent bioethicist and philosopher, even provokes conservative styles of thinking about genetic interventions, by stating that parents would be under an obligation, in such times, to genetically enhance their offspring in order to give them the very best quality and enjoyment of their lives.
- 145.
Agar (1998), p. 139.
- 146.
Ibid 138.
- 147.
Ibid.
- 148.
Agar (1998), p. 139.
- 149.
Ibid.
- 150.
Ibid.
- 151.
Ibid 141.
- 152.
The “therapeutic goods of genetic engineering” encompass treatments to ‘normalize’ an individual’s health, specifically focused on the treatment of diseases.
- 153.
Agar (1998), p. 141.
- 154.
It is recognized that the main aims of “eugenic goods” is targeted at individual enhancement.
- 155.
Agar (1998), p. 141.
- 156.
Ibid 142.
- 157.
Ibid.
- 158.
Agar (1998).
- 159.
Ibid 138.
- 160.
Stone et al. (2005).
- 161.
Heyman (1991), p. 507.
- 162.
Osborn (1937), pp. 389, 395.
- 163.
Ibid 391.
- 164.
Ibid 395.
- 165.
Agar (1998).
- 166.
Ibid 143.
- 167.
Ibid 141.
- 168.
Wiesenthal and Wiener (1999), pp. 383, 385.
- 169.
Ibid.
- 170.
Agar (1998).
- 171.
Sandel (2004), pp. 51, 60.
- 172.
Burrus (2011).
- 173.
Buchanan et al. (2001).
- 174.
Nozick (1974).
- 175.
Gyngell and Douglas (2015), pp. 241, 242.
- 176.
Nozick (1974).
- 177.
Habermas (2003).
- 178.
Sandel (2004), p. 60.
- 179.
Harris (2010).
- 180.
Savulescu (2001), p. 413.
- 181.
Ibid 413.
- 182.
Ibid.
- 183.
Savulescu (2007).
- 184.
Harris (2010).
- 185.
Selgelid (2014), p. 9.
- 186.
Savulescu (2009), p. 417.
- 187.
Harris (2010).
- 188.
Agar (2006), p. 4.
- 189.
Selgelid (2014), p. 8.
- 190.
Ibid.
- 191.
Ibid.
- 192.
Thomas (2017).
- 193.
- 194.
AGI is not to be confused with Artificial Intelligence (AI), although it may be considered a sub-set of AI. AI enables technologies like computers to operate intelligently, to mimic human-like behavior. AGI, however, is differentiated by the fact that computers in themselves would be able to perform actual, intellectual tasks that human beings can do, and not simply mimic in the manner of AI. The element of independence, therefore, is what differentiates AI from AGI. Current technologies, however, do not demonstrate that AGI is close to being achieved just yet.
- 195.
Fred Baumann, ‘Humanism and Transhumanism’ 17.
- 196.
Leem (2017), p. 657.
- 197.
Bognar (2016), p. 46.
- 198.
Basas (2014), p. 1035.
- 199.
Savulescu and Kahane (2011), p. 45.
- 200.
Burrus (2011).
- 201.
Savulescu and Kahane (2011), p. 45.
- 202.
Ibid 50.
- 203.
Ibid 51.
- 204.
Reiss and Straughan (1996).
- 205.
Selgelid (2014), p. 9.
- 206.
Singer (2009), p. 282.
- 207.
Ibid 288.
- 208.
Selgelid (2014), p. 11.
- 209.
Wiesenthal and Wiener (1999).
- 210.
Foucault (1963).
- 211.
Foucault (1977).
- 212.
Harris (2010).
- 213.
Chua (2011).
- 214.
Sandel (2004).
- 215.
Ibid.
- 216.
Cochrane (2014).
- 217.
Weihua and Xinwu (2000).
- 218.
The subject of Harvard Girl, Liu Yiting, was not only accepted into Harvard to study applied mathematics and economics, but also received competitive offers from Columbia, Yale and Wellesley.
- 219.
Flanigan (2013), p. 325.
- 220.
Agar (2006).
- 221.
Wiesenthal and Wiener (1999), p. 390.
- 222.
Dyson (1997), p. 46.
- 223.
Wiesenthal and Wiener (1999), p. 390.
- 224.
Ibid.
- 225.
Ibid 391.
- 226.
Ibid 392.
- 227.
Ibid.
- 228.
Foucault (1963).
- 229.
Foucault (1977), pp. 25–30.
- 230.
Ibid.
- 231.
Ibid 27.
- 232.
Ibid 25.
- 233.
Foucault (1976).
- 234.
Lessig (2006).
- 235.
Tien (2005), p. 23.
- 236.
Lessig (2006), p. 237.
- 237.
Tien (2005), p. 3.
- 238.
Foucault (1976).
- 239.
United Nations, ‘In Opening Debate On Human Cloning Ban, Some Speakers Urge Outright Prohibition, Others Favour Partial Ban To Allow For Medical Advances | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases’ https://www.un.org/press/en/2002/l2995.doc.htm.
- 240.
Christiansen (2017) (sciencenordic.com).
- 241.
Mehlman (1999), p. 671.
- 242.
Belluck (2017).
- 243.
Sándor (2015), p. 357.
- 244.
Ibid 355.
References
Agar N (1998) Liberal eugenics. Public Aff Q 12:137
Agar N (2006) The debate over liberal eugenics. Hast Cent Rep 36:4
Barnhart MG (1997) Ideas of nature in an Asian context. Philos East West 47:417
Barr MD, Lee Kuan Yew: race, culture and genes. 18
Basas CG (2014) What’s bad about wellness? What the disability rights perspective offers about the limitations of wellness. J Health Polit Policy Law 39:1035
Baumann F, Humanism and Transhumanism. 17
Belluck P (4 August 2017) Gene editing for “designer babies”? Highly unlikely, scientists say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/science/gene-editing-embryos-designer-babies.html
Bognar G (2016) Is disability mere difference? J Med Ethics 42:46
Botkin JR (1998) Ethical issues and practical problems in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Law Med Ethics 26:17
Briggs H (24 January 2018) First monkey clones created in the lab. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42809445
Buchanan A et al (2001) From chance to choice: genetics and justice. Cambridge University Press
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/200/case.html
Burrus T (23 June 2011) One generation of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Is Enough. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/blog/one-generation-oliver-wendell-holmes-jr-enough
Chan CK (1985) Eugenics on the rise: a report from Singapore. Int J Health Serv 15:707
Chesterton GK (2000) Eugenics and other evils: an argument against the scientifically organized state. Inkling Books
Christiansen K (14 November 2017) Genome editing: are we opening a back door to eugenics? Science Nordic. http://sciencenordic.com/genome-editing-are-we-opening-back-door-eugenics
Chua A (2011) Battle hymn of the tiger mother. Penguin Group
Cochrane K (7 February 2014) The truth about the tiger mother’s family. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/07/truth-about-tiger-mothers-family-amy-chua
Cohen A (2016) Imbeciles, The Supreme Court, American Eugenics and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck. Penguin Press
Cook M (19 August 2017) China rushes into embryo selection. BioEdge. https://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/china-rushes-into-embryo-selection/12399
Cyranoski D, Reardon S (2015) Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
Deppe C (2010) Tao Te Ching: a window to the Tao through the words of Lao Tzu. Fertile Valley Publishing. https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Deppe.pdf
Dhammanada KS (2002) What Buddhists believe, 4th edn. Buddhist Missionary Society Malaysia
Dyson F (1997) Can science be ethical? N Y Rev Books 44:46
Encyclopedia of Bioethics, vol 2, 3rd edn (Thomson Gale 2004)
Flanigan J (2013) Adderall for all: a defense of pediatric neuroenhancement. HEC Forum 25:325
Foley KE (23 January 2018) Chinese scientists already used Crispr gene editing on 86 human patients. Quartz. https://qz.com/1185488/chinese-scientists-used-crispr-gene-editing-on-86-human-patients/
Foucault M (1963) Naissance de La Clinique Une Archéologie Du Regard Médical. Presses Universitaires de France
Foucault M (1976) The history of sexuality volume I: an introduction. Pantheon Books
Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, Random House
Franklin DL (29 June 2015) How the 1942 case of a one-footed chicken thief laid the foundation for marriage equality. Slate Magazine. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/06/gay_marriage_supreme_court_ruling_how_skinner_v_oklahoma_laid_the_foundation.html
Gabbatis J (14 February 2018) Dolly the sheep: 15 years after her death, cloning still has the power to shock. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dolly-the-sheep-cloning-15-years-death-future-humans-monkeys-what-next-a8208896.html
Galton D (2002) Eugenics. The future of human life in the 21st century. Abacus
Ganesan JS (7 October 2016) A short history of the word “Kiasu”. Esquire Singapore. https://www.esq.sg/lifestyle/culture/news/A-Short-History-Of-Kiasu
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html
Groll D, Lott M (2015) Is there a role for “human nature” in debates about human enhancement? Philosophy 90:623
Gyngell C, Douglas T (2015) Stocking the genetic supermarket: reproductive genetic technologies and collective action problems: stocking the genetic supermarket. Bioethics 29:241
Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature. Polity Press
Handyside A (2010) Let parents decide. Nature 464:978
Harris J (2010) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University Press
Hediger R (2016) Becoming with animals: sympoiesis and the ecology of meaning in London and Hemingway. Stud Am Nat 11:5
Heinemann T, Honnefelder L (2003) Principles of ethical decision making regarding embryonic stem cell research in Germany. Bioethics 16:530
Heyman SJ (1991) First duty of government: protection, liberty and the fourteenth amendment. Duke Law J 41:507
Hovhannisyan A (2018) Ōta Tenrei’s defense of birth control, eugenics and euthanasia. Contemp Jpn 30:28
Hsu P, Lander E, Zhang F (2014) Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157:1262
IMDb, Science and the Swastika. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808104/
Ingram C (12 March 2003) State issues apology for policy of sterilization. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/12/local/me-sterile12
Kaelber L, Eugenics: compulsory sterilization in 50 American states. https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/
Kango-Singh M (2010) In: Speicher M, Antonarakis SE, Motulsky AG (eds) Vogel and Motulsky’s human genetics-problems and approaches. BioMed Central. https://humgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-7364-5-1-73
Kater MH (1987) The burden of the past: problems of a modern historiography of physicians and medicine in Nazi Germany. Ger Stud Rev 10:31
Kevles DJ (1999) Eugenics and human rights. BMJ: Br Med J 319:435
Kurzweil R (2014) The singularity is near. In: Sandler RL (ed) Ethics and emerging technologies. Palgrave Macmillan
Leem SY (2017) Gangnam-style plastic surgery: the science of westernized beauty in South Korea. Med Anthropol 36:657
Lessig L (2006) Code: Version 2.0, 2nd edn. Basic Books
Matsubara Y (1998) The enactment of Japan’s sterilization laws in the 1940s: a prelude to postwar eugenic policy. Historia Scientiarum 8:187
Mehlman MJ (1999) How will we regulate genetic enhancement. Wake Forest Law Rev 34:671
Mendel as the Father of Genetics:: DNA from the Beginning. http://www.dnaftb.org/1/bio.html
Nature (1998) China’s “eugenics” law still disturbing despite relabelling. Nature 394:707
North Carolina Administration, NC DOA: Welcome to the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims. https://ncadmin.nc.gov/about-doa/special-programs/welcome-office-justice-sterilization-victims
Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books
Osborn F (1937) Development of a eugenic philosophy. Am Sociol Rev 2:389
Pellissier H (22 June 2015) Do you fear eugenics? China does not, and that’s a problem - interview with Chad White. Institute for Emerging Technologies and Ethics. https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/pellissier20150622
Portnoy J (27 February 2015) Va. General Assembly agrees to compensate eugenics victims. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/va-general-assembly-agrees-to-compensate-eugenics-victims/2015/02/27/b2b7b0ec-be9e-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.129bf4f66cb1
Reiss MJ, Straughan R (1996) Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press
Robertson J (2010) Eugenics in Japan: Sanguinous repair. In: Bashford A, Levine P (eds) The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
Rorty MV (2003) The future of human nature. Notre Dame Philos Rev
Saetz SB, Court MV, Henshaw, MW (1985) Eugenics and the third Reich. Eugen Bull
Sandel M (2004) The case against perfection. Atl Mon 293:51
Sándor J (2015) The ethical and legal analysis of embryo preimplantation testing policies in Europe. In: Scott Sills E (ed) Screening the single euploid embryo. Springer International Publishing
Savulescu J (2001) Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15:413
Savulescu J (2007) Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In: The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford University Press
Savulescu J (2009) Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. Read Philos Technol:417
Savulescu J, Kahane G (2011) Disability: a welfarist approach. Clin Ethics 6:45
Selgelid MJ (2014) Modern eugenics and human enhancement. Med Healthcare Philos 17:3
Sholley JB (1951) Constitution of the United States of America. In: Cases on constitutional law. Bobbs-Merrill
Shuster E (1997) Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med 337:1436
Singapore Democratic Party, Eugenics in Singapore. http://yoursdp.org//news/eugenics_in_singapore/2008-11-09-558
Singer P (2009) Parental choice and human improvement. In: Human enhancement. Oxford University Press
Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html
Stone G et al (2005) Constitutional law, 5th edn. Aspen Publishers
Tarrant-Cornish T (26 December 2017) Richest country in the World: China to overtake the US as most powerful economy. Express. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/896869/China-economy-US-richest-country-world-Donald-Trump-trade-GDP-research
Thomas A (31 July 2017) Super-intelligence and eternal life: transhumanism’s faithful follow it blindly into a future for the elite. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/super-intelligence-and-eternal-life-transhumanisms-faithful-follow-it-blindly-into-a-future-for-the-elite-78538
Tien L (2005) Architectural regulation and the evolution of social norms. Yale J Law Technol 7:23
United Nations, In opening debate on human cloning ban, some speakers urge outright prohibition, others favour partial ban to allow for medical advances | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases. https://www.un.org/press/en/2002/l2995.doc.htm
Vetlesen AJ (2005) The future of human nature. Scand J Disabil Res 7:232
Watts G (31 January 2018) “Eugenics” case highlights dark chapter in Japanese history. Asia Times. https://www.asiatimes.com/2018/01/article/eugenics-case-highlights-dark-chapter-japanese-history/
Weihua L, Xinwu Z (2000) Harvard Girl Liu Yiting: a character training record. Writers Publishing House
Wiesenthal DL, Wiener NI (1999) Ethical questions in the age of the new eugenics. Sci Eng Ethics 5:383
World Bank (2018) Global economy to edge up to 3.1 percent in 2018 but future potential growth a concern. World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/01/09/global-economy-to-edge-up-to-3-1-percent-in-2018-but-future-potential-growth-a-concern
World Medical Association (2018) WMA declaration of Helsinki - ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
Yap MT (2003) Fertility and population policy: the Singapore experience. J Popul Soc Secur (Popul) 1(Suppl):643
Yong E (2 August 2017) The designer baby era is not upon us. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/us-scientists-edit-human-embryos-with-crisprand-thats-okay/535668/
Yuehtsen JC (2010) Eugenics in China and Hong Kong: nationalism and colonialism, 1890s–1940s. In: Bashford A, Levine P (eds) The Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics
Zeidman LA (2011) Neuroscience in Nazi Europe Part I: eugenics, human experimentation, and mass murder. Can J Neurol Sci/Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques 38:696
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lau, P.L. (2019). The Legacy of Eugenics in Contemporary Law. In: Comparative Legal Frameworks for Pre-Implantation Embryonic Genetic Interventions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22308-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22308-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22307-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22308-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)