4 ms·

Eugenics in this context is a bad example, because in this case controlled breeding definitely gets results, i.e. the theory (sort of) agrees with the theory, a

by Jun8 14y ago

Eugenics in this context is a bad example, because in this case controlled breeding definitely gets results, i.e. the theory (sort of) agrees with the theory, at least in the case of animals. You should thank such manipulative practices when you are enjoying a seedless banana. Of course, the practice is abhorrent! But, and I think this is important, the ethical part has nothing to do with the science part. Consider the piece from NYT that reported Robert Spitzer's apology (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer...) for defining homosexuality as a "disease" and trying to cure it. When he published his study one commentary: "...cited the Nuremberg Code of ethics to denounce the study as not only flawed but morally wrong. “We fear the repercussions of this study, including an increase in suffering, prejudice, and discrimination,” concluded a group of 15 researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where Dr. Spitzer was affiliated." I think that a scientific theory can we wrong or right (or currently undecided) but it cannot be morally wrong. The way you perform the experiments to test it may be morally wrong, though. There were significant faults with Spitzer's research, these should be pointed out rather than its moral wrongness. Similarly eugenics should be attacked for its unintended consequences (e.g. extinction of Cavendish bananas http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/bananas.asp) and its nineteenth-century simplistic approach to the human genetic-psychological relationship which, as we now, is vastly complex.

j_baker 14y ago
I think the problem is that most people (at least in the US) don't have enough science knowledge to know why they should even care about Spitzer's bad science. However, most people have an opinion about the morality of eugenics, so people tend to focus on that.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
Of course, the practice is abhorrent! While I agree that eugenics has been used (often poorly) to justify many horrible policies in the past, I don't think it's abhorrent in general. Today eugenics is used very successfully to prevent horrible genetic diseases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim Most of the horrible policies we associate with eugenics are actually a result of a belief in eugenics AND malthusianism. If you reject malthusianism and replace it with, e.g., comparative advantage, you lose the scary policy prescriptions. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu....
- drcube 14y ago
  The problem with eugenics is that it necessitates a central authority over the human genome. No unified standard will fit all people, and human rights and reproductive freedom must be pushed aside in order to accomplish such a goal. This is ignoring the racism, social Darwinism and genocide most people associate with eugenics. However, the distributed method, where individuals choose to have children with people whose hereditary lines they believe should continue into the future, has been going on successfully for millions of years. The best I could support would be more information and control. Educate people about genes, inform them which genes they possess, and watch them use that information to their benefit. Sort of like people with Huntington's disease often voluntarily refuse to reproduce, due to the likelihood of their children having it too.
Oscarus 14y ago
I was going to say something similar, although it would have been more polemical ;)... Eugenics is a bad example because it is something popularly believed to be false, not least among those who consider themselves knowledgeable, but in reality, is not necessarily scientifically baseless. Often, it is precisely those who bid you "question everything!" and "speak truth to power!" who will brook no dissent when their deeply held beliefs come up for debate. One example, related to eugenics, is the study of intelligence. A survey of scientific experts in the field[1] found that a far greater proportion of them supported the 'hereditarian hypothesis' of intelligence being partly heritable, than the media let on; the views the press described as 'beyond the pale' among scientists were actually common, if not orthodox, among the actual scientists, even on the most controversial of questions. The real story is that these scientists don't publicize their findings lest their field falls into disrepute and their funding gets pulled. Instead, they labor quietly, proceeding apace with their research in obscure journals unknown to the public. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_(study) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_(study)

by Jun8 14y ago

j_baker 14y ago

I think the problem is that most people (at least in the US) don't have enough science knowledge to know why they should even care about Spitzer's bad science. However, most people have an opinion about the morality of eugenics, so people tend to focus on that.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Of course, the practice is abhorrent! While I agree that eugenics has been used (often poorly) to justify many horrible policies in the past, I don't think it's abhorrent in general. Today eugenics is used very successfully to prevent horrible genetic diseases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim Most of the horrible policies we associate with eugenics are actually a result of a belief in eugenics AND malthusianism. If you reject malthusianism and replace it with, e.g., comparative advantage, you lose the scary policy prescriptions. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/eugenics_malthu....

drcube 14y ago
The problem with eugenics is that it necessitates a central authority over the human genome. No unified standard will fit all people, and human rights and reproductive freedom must be pushed aside in order to accomplish such a goal. This is ignoring the racism, social Darwinism and genocide most people associate with eugenics. However, the distributed method, where individuals choose to have children with people whose hereditary lines they believe should continue into the future, has been going on successfully for millions of years. The best I could support would be more information and control. Educate people about genes, inform them which genes they possess, and watch them use that information to their benefit. Sort of like people with Huntington's disease often voluntarily refuse to reproduce, due to the likelihood of their children having it too.

Oscarus 14y ago

I was going to say something similar, although it would have been more polemical ;)... Eugenics is a bad example because it is something popularly believed to be false, not least among those who consider themselves knowledgeable, but in reality, is not necessarily scientifically baseless. Often, it is precisely those who bid you "question everything!" and "speak truth to power!" who will brook no dissent when their deeply held beliefs come up for debate. One example, related to eugenics, is the study of intelligence. A survey of scientific experts in the field[1] found that a far greater proportion of them supported the 'hereditarian hypothesis' of intelligence being partly heritable, than the media let on; the views the press described as 'beyond the pale' among scientists were actually common, if not orthodox, among the actual scientists, even on the most controversial of questions. The real story is that these scientists don't publicize their findings lest their field falls into disrepute and their funding gets pulled. Instead, they labor quietly, proceeding apace with their research in obscure journals unknown to the public. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_(study) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_(study)