EDITORIAL
EDITORIAL
Eugenics vs. Euphenics—Our Past vs. Our Future?
Written by: Elizabeth Fernandez
Cartoon by: Jean Rogue Baydo
1940, Germany.
World War I is fully in swing, and with it, horrible atrocities committed in the name of racial cleansing for the “betterment of society”. Hitler’s propagation of his twisted version of the Aryan Race theory was believed and idolized by Nazis—a theory that according to him venerated the white, blonde, and blue-eyed Aryans as the superior beings that had the responsibility to cleanse the Earth of marginalized groups. This, of course, has no actual scientific basis and fully lied in his sheer racism and bigotry. However, his Nazi scientist did quote a very real scientific concept—eugenics.
Eugenics is the theory of racial improvement via planned breeding that seeks to eliminate "disadvantageous" genes from the population, thus forming the "perfect" human race. Needless to say, this controversial practice became the "logical" weapon of countless attacks against marginalized peoples and cultures.
Today the thought of eugenic practices leave many aghast. But what if I tell you that the practice is very much still applied and that you may actually be both a product and a participant of it?
In fact, current technologies like genetic screening pave a way for the practice of eugenics. Genetic screening for genetically altered embryos and healthy ones provide the mother a chance to bear a healthy child—a scenario that presents autonomous reproductive choice. Furthermore, one can argue that sexual choice of mates like positive assortative mating (choosing someone that is like you) practices eugenics to propagate a trait (allele in genetic terms). Suffice to say, eugenics is very much still in practice today and is prevalent in medical and personal choices.
As such, do we really have the right to dilute and devilize the term eugenics? If so, are we also damning the medical choices and preferences of people? Can we truly blame parents who want to ensure that their potential child is healthy, especially when outside forces (societal pressures, economic status, etc…) render them unable to give quality care to a child with genetic disorders?
​
Yes–eugenics in the name of racial cleansing is evil. Yes—eugenics provides a choice for parents with familial history of genetic diseases to bear a healthy child. These two things can co-exist. In fact, there are some communities that have a prenatal genetic screening as a normal protocol in prenatal care. Evidently, like most tools of the scientific trade, it is the wielder of the knowledge that can twist it into something that can destroy lives.
​
Nevertheless, the stigma in the term “eugenics” persists. Instead an alternate theory and practice is being lauded as the more humane and accepting future of genetic treatment—euphenics.
In contrast to eugenics that targets reproductive strategies to refine the gene pool, euphenics seeks to externally mitigate harmful effects of genetic disorders—making it more of a symptomatic treatment than direct genetic manipulation. In euphenics, prenatal screening and detection is still performed for genetic diseases. However, instead of opting to terminate the pregnancy or discard the embryo, early diagnosis is done and preparations are made to treat the symptoms of the genetic disease. An example of this is the strict diet against a type of protein called phenylalanine for individuals with phenylketonuria which when ingested can cause a toxic build-up of the protein leading to nervous system damage. Other examples include insulin injections for diabetes patients, or even the creation of prosthetic arms for those with missing limbs.
The more “inclusive” nature of euphenics tends to draw more favor from people and thus presents a utopian idea of equitable therapy in the future. Nonetheless, devil’s advocates claim that the very nature of euphenics cannot be equitable. Especially with the socio-economic landscape of today, the vast majority of the population cannot afford long-term treatment for their conditions. Moreover, there is the argument that euphenics can lead to suffering of any future offsprings of those treated and—in the long term—genetic deterioration of the gene pool as the deleterious genes are not removed.
The reductionist argument of good versus evil regarding eugenics and euphenics is shortsighted. Instead, individual circumstances, socioeconomic, and political landscapes should be prioritized over blanket arguments that drown out the very real lives affected by genetic diseases. While there is no damnation in scientific progress and considerations, it is the myriad of situations surrounding the person that ultimately determines their fate.
OTHER EDITORIALS
“...a study conducted by the International Journal of Epidemiology and Health, it has been shown that one out of every twenty-five men, worldwide, raises another man’s child without knowing it.”