Learning from the past

Interestingly, many who work in the field of genetic selection often seek to avoid using the term ‘eugenics’ in their discussions since they recognize that it is loaded with meaning and tarnished by the abuses that took place during the Nazi regime in Germany in the first half of the twentieth century. As a result, alternative terminology such as ‘human enhancement’ or ‘therapeutic selection’ is considered to be more appropriate, though the consequences may be similar and the changes may only be cosmetic. Thus, many of those who support selection procedures argue that using the term ‘eugenics’ is detrimental to recognizing scientific progress and its predictive capacity.

British scientist Francis Crick (1916–2004), who received the Nobel Prize with James Watson, indicated in 1971 that the Nazis had simply given eugenics ‘a bad name’, adding,

‘I think it is time something is done to make it respectable again.’

In addition, many present commentators seek to avoid using the word when future parents undertake the selection decision voluntarily in order to make sure that their future child is not affected by a serious biological disorder. Indeed, respect for patients’ wishes and their autonomy in reproduction have become dominant positions in contemporary society. But honesty demands that the different selection procedures already taking place in society are described as ‘eugenic’ if lessons are to be learned from history. There is no way around this reality, and it is inherently deceitful to undertake an exercise in ‘vocabulary cleansing’.

Many of the historical eugenicists believed that the establishment of a voluntary eugenic system in conjunction with widespread education and accessibility were the best ways of preventing the birth of people they considered degenerate. For example, even Galton was opposed to any coercion in the implementation of eugenic policies.

In short, eugenic policies are about the selection of human persons based on genetics, regardless of the different forms in which such a selection may take place. Furthermore, it is unfortunate that use of the word ‘eugenics’ elicits such a defensive reaction from so many supporters of selection procedures who generally articulate (rightly) deep offence at being compared to Nazi policy sympathizers. Such a reaction disregards the important historical fact that most past supporters of such eugenic procedures were not considered to be moral monsters, but normal people influenced by similar contemporary trends and aspirations as those that exist today. In addition, eugenic sympathizers in Nazi Germany, who did not stop the abuse implemented by their government, were not all that different from those who existed at the time in other European countries. This means that taking the moral high ground by suggesting that such unethical and abusive eugenic programmes could never take place today reflects a profound lack of humility and sense of reality. Perception also requires a rejection of the belief that ‘It cannot happen here,’ ‘It cannot happen again’ or ‘It cannot happen to us.’

Society can never believe that it is free from the abuses of the past.

It is important therefore to seek to learn from history and what went wrong in the past. This is because even at the beginning of the twentieth century eugenic ideology was driven by the aim of maximizing what is considered to be good, from the perspective of a relentless quest for health and the avoidance of suffering – an aim that resonates today in relation to the expected health and quality of life outcomes for a future child.

Christianity and the New Eugenics: Should We Choose to only have healthy or enhanced children? is one of IVP's May 2020 releases and publishes on the 20th of May. You can order your copy in ebook or paperback now!