 | This articlemay beunbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please helpimprove it by adding information on neglected viewpoints. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page.(October 2025) |
New eugenics, also known asliberal eugenics (a term coined by bioethicistNicholas Agar),[1] advocatesenhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use ofreproductive technology andhuman genetic engineering. Those who advocate for new eugenics generally think selecting or altering embryos should be left to the preferences ofparents, rather than forbidden (or left to the preferences of thestate). New eugenics purports to distinguish itself from the forms ofeugenics practiced and advocated in the 20th century, which fell into disrepute afterWorld War II.[2]
Eugenics is sometimes broken into the categories of positive eugenics (encouraging reproduction among the designated "fit") and negative eugenics (discouraging or prohibiting reproduction among those designated "unfit"). Both positive and negative eugenic programs were advocated and pursued during the early 20th century. Negative programs were responsible for thecompulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of persons in many countries, and were included in much of the rhetoric ofNazi eugenic policies ofracial hygiene andgenocide.[3]
New eugenics generally supportsgenetic modification or genetic selection of individuals for traits that are supposed to improve human welfare. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic basis of future generations and reduce the incidence of genetic diseases and other undesirable traits. Some of the practices included in new eugenics are: prenatal testing,[4] pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection,[5][6] selective breeding,[7] and human embryo engineering and gene therapy.[8][9]
New eugenics was founded under the liberal ethical values ofpluralism, which advocates for the respect ofpersonal autonomy, andegalitarianism, which represents the idea of equality for all people. Arguments used in favor of new eugenics include that it is in the best interest of society that life succeeds rather than fails, and that it is acceptable to ensure that progeny has a chance of achieving this success.[9] Ethical arguments against new eugenics include the claim that creating designer babies is not in the best interest of society, as it might create a breach between genetically modified individuals and natural individuals.[10] Additionally, some of these technologies might be economically restrictive, further increasing the socio-economic gap.[7]
Dov Fox, a law professor at theUniversity of San Diego, argues that liberal eugenics cannot be justified on the basis of the underlyingliberal theory which inspires its name. Instead, he favors traditional, coercive eugenics, arguing that reprogenetic technologies like embryo selection, cellular surgery, and human genetic engineering, which aim to enhance general-purpose traits in offspring, are not practices a liberal government leaves to the discretion of parents, but practices thestate makes compulsory.[11] Fox argues that if the liberal commitment toautonomy is important enough for the state to mandate childrearing practices such as health care and basic education, that very same interest is important enough for the state to mandate safe, effective, and functionally integrated genetic practices that act on analogous all-purpose traits such as resistance to disease and general cognitive functioning. He concludes that the liberal case for compulsory eugenics is areductio ad absurdum against liberal theory.[11]
The United NationsInternational Bioethics Committee wrote that new eugenics should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements. They have also stated that the notion is nevertheless problematic as it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new ways of discrimination and stigmatization against those who do not want or cannot afford the enhancements.[12]
The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case.