Hanna Isha Piang January 8, 2017

AB PHILOSOPHY PHILO 154

Summary and Evaluation of “About the Risks of a New Eugenics”

by Hector Palma and Eduardo Wolovelsky

About the Risks of a New Eugenics is exactly what it claims to be based on the title.

It is thorough discussion about new eugenics filled with the authors’ insights. The

authors used a historical approach discussing the movement of eugenics, beginning of

the article with who created eugenics then discusses relative details to eugenics under

subheadings which are eugenic practices, medicalization: eugenics as a technocratic

practice, and ‘racialism’: eugenics as an authoritarian practice. Finally, the article is

concluded under the subheading “CAN A NEW EUGENICS BE EXPECTED?” In this

paper, I will briefly summarize each part of the article. I will then evaluate the article as

a whole at the end of the paper as well as part some insights regarding new eugenics.

The first part, “ABOUT THE SO-CALLED ‘NEW LIBERAL EUGENICS’”, is an

introduction of what eugenics is in the past, by past I refer to the time towards the

culmination of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, and how the current

technological development in human reproduction and the new possibilities that

accompanies these advancements calls for a reexamination of the budding new

1
eugenics. Eugenics is “any intervention, individual or collective, with a view to the

modification of the genetic characteristics if the offsrpring, independently of the

therapeutic or social goals pursued” (Palma & Wolovelsky, 2014), this is according to

Sontullo cited by the authors. The main difference that the authors pointed out, between

this past conception of eugenics and liberal or new eugenics, is that the former is

decided or enforced by the State or while the latter is decided by individuals such as the

parents.

The past version of eugenics did not have a positive ring to it due to its abuse in

the history that is also discussed in the later parts of the paper and so those who

support new eugenics point at the difference between the past and new eugenics while

those who condemn it point at the similarities. The authors’ then presented their

purpose: to contribute in clarifying the premises of the debate between those who

support and condemn the re-emergence of eugenics, now referred to as ‘new’ or ‘liberal’

eugenics. Also, there is a discussion of pre-implantation diagnosis or PGD as one of the

issues in the debate.

Moreover, in the first part the difference between positive and negative eugenics

is discussed, the authors claim that the distinction holds little to no relevance in

examining new eugenics, which is the primary concern of the article. This introductory

part sets up the article well, because it establishes the purpose of the article and at the

2
last part, restates the problem again: whether the new eugenics is same with the past

eugenics.

The authors saw the necessity of reviewing some characteristics of eugenics and

this is what the second part of the article, “THE EUGENIC MOVEMENT”, is all about.

The discussion of the history of the eugenic movement started with the creation of

eugenics from Sir Francis Galton who lived through 1822 to 1911 and ended with

Virginia’s sterilization laws that lasted until 1972. Basically, the vision seemingly is to

eliminate what is pathologic and what is seen as inferior through certain eugenic

practices that is sanctioned by the State with the aid of the scientists and thinkers who

also support the ideal but on the other hand strengthened beliefs and prejudices

prevailing at the time since even the conception of what a ‘disease’ actually is clouded

with bias and or plain confusion.

The fortification of eugenic ideals caused the emergence of various associations

and societies in the 20th century dedicated to it. United States of America is a given

example of countries that promulgated laws that are aimed for eugenic sterilization so

that the ‘purity of white race’ will remain. These laws legally allowed operations on

people seen as ‘social misfits’, which bring us to the next part of the article, the

discussion of eugenic practices. This part of the article provided a substantial historical

background of eugenics as well as presented the problems that emerged from it,

racialism for example, that will be discussed further in the following parts of the paper.

3
 The third part of the article discussed eugenic practices, specifically, mandatory

prenuptial medical certificates, birth control, sterilization of certain groups, eugenic

abortion, and immigration restrictions. After a thorough discussion of each eugenic

practice, the relationship between eugenics in education is presented as well as the

eugenics’ increasing medicalization.

Under the subheading “medicalization: eugenics as a technocratic practice”, the

probable reason why eugenics gained high esteem is presented. As the authors

discussed, the State see eugenics as an appropriate response to the new problems in the

fields of social medicine or public hygiene. Since the State is responsible for the

regulation of the reproduction of the population especially of those who are seen as

unfit in the society, the State intervenes either by educating or legislating the

population. Also, it is discussed that medical doctors are the scientists who are in the

frontline when speaking about eugenics because they question and demand the State to

intervene to prevent unwanted occurrences in the society such as epidemics. The

primacy of the society over the individuals is the belief where eugenics is grounded,

and the State’s intervention is what makes it different from liberal eugenics.

Also, the close relationship of eugenics and criminology is discussed in the

paper. In connection with this, the Lambrosian theory is tackled. Lambroso provided a

very specific characterization for criminals and said that punishments should

correspond with the criminal not the crime. Immigration, which consists of anarchist

4
immigrants, is given as an example to illustrate the connection of race and crime and

the role of the State on the restrictions within immigration policies.

The next part of the article, “’racialism’: eugenics as an authoritarian practice”,

expounded on, as the subheading suggests, racialism. According to the authors, racist

considerations are further given scientific backup through the years, creating different

hierarchies between races and this probably is why eugenics is a controversial issue for

it can and did aid such prejudices on “inferior” races. Count Joseph Arthur of Gobineau

and his exposition on the differences of human races’ characteristics is one of the first

marks of racialism. He defended the idea that the purity of blood, in this case French

blood, must be preserved. Various ways to distinguish races by various thinkers are

discussed in the article. Fundamentally, the white race is the superior race and the

inferior race consists of the blacks, Polynesians and Asians. Even within the white race

there is a hierarchy in the form of social classes. Eugenics supposedly gave a more

standardized version of racialism. This racialist framework also affected many of the

countries’ immigration policies.

Lastly, for the concluding part entitled “CAN A NEW EUGENICS BE

EXPECTED?” the authors attempted to answer the two questions they laid in the

beginning of the paper. Regarding the first question, “in what sense can we speak about

new eugenics?” (Palma & Wolovelsky, 2014), the authors see common description of

eugenics as the manipulation of offspring as not interesting since it does not reflect the

5
complexity of the problem, the different perspectives and its scope. Eugenics therefore

is characterized as a practice that is technocratic and authoritarian considering the role

of State and doctors in the implementation of policies that plays a huge role in the

history of eugenics. Since the emerging new eugenics is based on individual decisions,

the authors then suggests that it is different from what eugenics of the past is, also it

will be a contradiction to the term liberal. However, regardless of who makes the

decision, when the choice regarding the desirable characters is spoken about, it will be

based on the prevailing social nature of prejudice.

The second question on “whether eugenic practices can be reinstated” (Palma &

Wolovelsky, 2014), the authors answered that it is possible that eugenic programs will

be implemented, not within democracies but in authoritarian societies. As the authors

put it, an Orwellian type of society where majority of the people will be affected with

fear cause by propaganda will desire and allow eugenic programs. However, eugenic

programs can hide behind subtler social practices such as the exclusion or limitation of

some citizens from medical insurance and coverage. Therefore, the authors deem it

significant to subject all new knowledge in cell genetics to moral and legal brakes. It is

also important that the public take part in debates regarding eugenics and to never

choose ignorance about the issue. The authors warn us that to obstruct scientific

advancements in order to avoid the challenges posed by modern genetics is to overlook

6
two things: that eugenics progress despite its weak grounding and that science is not

autonomous, it is part of culture.

The article is presented in such a way where its subject and content will appeal to

both novice and veteran regarding eugenics. Being a novice myself, I found the article’s

setup to be a helpful way of introducing me to eugenics as well as acquaint me with the

various views and problems that emerged from it. There are plenty examples and

situations presented that is a decent source of insights. I personally had to read the

article several times and look for the definition of some concepts used by the authors

but a well-read individual will find no trouble in comprehending the various points

about the differences of past and new eugenics made in the article.

The authors used the past experience of eugenics as a reference to what the risks

of this new liberal eugenics are. Therefore, the article exhausted more on eugenics than

new eugenics. I agree with the arguments and position that the authors took, implicitly

stated in the last part of the article, specifically to never choose ignorance about issues

such as new eugenics and the importance of putting moral and legal brakes on any

issue. To conclude in this evaluation, the contents of the article are true to what it claims

to be in the title.

While being mindful of the potential risks of new eugenics, I am for its

celebration. As I see it, one of the fundamental issues why there is a risk in new

eugenics is that the choice, whether by the State of individuals, regarding what is

7
desirable will heavily rely on the current social nature of prejudice. I argue that because

the millennial generation, which are considered are more ethnically and racially diverse

and are generally considered as mostly educated (Pew Research Center, 2010), the risks

of new eugenics will be mitigated. The technological advancements in gene cell

treatment and the current state of mind of people of this age is far different from the

way people think during the culmination of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th as

shown by this generation of millenials, people who are born after 1980. (Pew Research

Center, 2010)

New eugenics is to be celebrated due new possibilities of interfering with future

offsprings’ quality and therefore decreases the chances of the dysfunction of future

individuals offering them better living conditions. As long as all parties involved in

new eugenics remains fair and honest with their motives, new eugenics is nothing to be

feared yet something to deal cautiously with.

8
 References

Palma, H. & Wolovelsky, E. (2004). About the risks of a new eugenics. In P. Lorenzano,
L.A.P. Martins, & A.C.K.P. Regner (Eds.), History and philosophy of the life
sciences in the South Cone. Londres, UK: College Publications.
Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to change. Pew
research center: Social & demographic trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-
open-to-change/.