Is a better future possible from Eugenics? by Judy Nabb

Judy Nabb

Essay Abstract

Eugenics to some degree is already long established and widely practiced, but is still an uncomfortable subject for many. Advance of technology has opened greater opportunities for well informed intervention and the range and capabilities of eugenics are likely to widen. We argue that continuance and intensification are inevitable with recognised benefits but equal dangers. How long before 'designer babies' become the norm? Should we continue along this path? If so, will it just be because we can, or as a strategy to secure our future? Our knowledge of biology and the human genome will bring ever increasing power to reduce morbidity. Better recognition, consideration and discussion of the issues and practice is essential. But by who?

Author Bio

Working in biology and medicine, specialising mainly in reproductive systems, physiology, embryo and human development in practice, academia and research. Gained Degrees in the UK. Headed up departments at two universities and moderator at a third. Also a specialist book editor.

Download Essay PDF File

Georgina Woodward

Hi Judy,

a very brave decision to discuss such a controversial and almost taboo subject. You have done it sensitively even considering the feelings of those that might have been considered 'worthy' of termination. The practice of genetic counselling and screening of embryos can prevent the heart break of bringing another sick or disabled child into the world. Selection of fit embryos can be carried out prior to implantation rather than abortion of fetuses already naturally implanted. Using the same kind of techniques for designer children is not such an admirable prospect. Diversity is in itself a measure of fitness (for survival) of a population. It would be a shame to reduce that population fitness for the sake of fashion or desire for conformity to an imagined "ideal" phenotype.

You have not mentioned the problem of the abandonment or termination of many girl children in China as some parents have regarded a son only child as more desirable.That has now left an imbalance of the sexes in the population, which will I expect lead to future problems with not enough women to become wives of those sons. I have read that termination and abandonment of girls is also a problem in rural India, as there also boys are regarded as more desirable offspring.

An informative, thorough discussion of a difficult, sensitive topic. Good luck, Georgina

Judy Nabb

Thank you Georgina. It's a very sensitive and difficult subject for people to face. I tried to focus on the more social than biological issues. Unfortunately I ran out of time to really pull it all together.

I did briefly mention China and the long history of the practice of abandonment, but the results of China's policies are a big and complex topic themselves. As something not likely to become common practice (due to pre-natal science) it can distract from the bigger picture, but then who knows!

I enjoyed you essay, but what techniques do you proposes to l keep population constant? Eugenics would be essential, so 'designer babies' the norm!

I see the evolution of the way we use our brains as far more important, bringing focus on post natal development and teaching. From Peter's work I'm greatly impressed with the way Architects are taught to think. It seems to be a two hemispheric multiplication; never 'assuming', visionary and clinically analytical. We can't generalise that with biology. Can we only do it with a different type of teaching?

Judy

[deleted]

Hi Judy,

Don't really want to go there, as we agree it is a very sensitive topic . However these are some ideas that I see might be useful in maintaining the fictitious population.

1. Many people opting to be child free for the health benefits, freedom and lifestyle that allows.

2. Societal /peer pressure to be child free rather than the expectation of parenthood.

3. Planned parenthood with suitability testing i.e. sufficient desire to be a parent, intelligence and health to carry out the demanding full time role.

4. An attempt to maintain genetic diversity within the gene pool for population health and to prevent genetic drift towards a particular type.

5. For those who would make good dedicated parents there might be selection of healthy embryos for implantation where there is genetic disease in the family, as occurs now at the request of some families.Or opportunity for adoption.

6. Gametes of the non reproducing population might be kept for possible future fertilization and implantation, so the actual gene pool is larger than just the reproducing individuals.

Designer babies, no. I don't see that as inevitable.

Judy Nabb

Georgina,

"Don't really want to go there"

Precisely the point of my essay. Everybody wants the ideals you list, that's the easy bit, yet few want to face the realities of implementing them, or implementing anything that will he the slightest effect. To analyse;

1. We have that choice already.

2. Didn't work in China. Low effectiveness even AFTER effective change.

3. Totalitarian. Who dictates if we can have children? Doctors!

4. Non-contributive secondary matter.

5. Ditto, and over 99% prefer the natural way when they have choice.

6. Ditto.

You see the only effective method of reduction is the totalitarian one. Ideas are fine, what I'm saying is that when it comes to planned effective actions we need realism! At present nobody is facing up to that. I hope you can see that your utopia can never exist in the first place without either a) those hard choices, b) war, c) plague or d) genocide. Would we not best 'steer' by making those hard choices to avoid the other options, if reduction is really needed?

Also none of the choices seem to address the real need, to accelerate evolution of intellect. The need seems clearer to me than the need for ideal 'physical perfection'. But I see as expected that most people still prefer fantasy idealism to the pain of reality. Your essay is doing exceptionally well and mine very poorly.

Good luck in the results.

Judy

Georgina Woodward

Hi Judy,

my story is a vehicle for raising and giving solutions to a number of problems . cancer, antibiotic resistance, desertification and more, to make it easy to read and enjoyable. It also touches on physics, including subtly on my explanatory framework for physics. I really should have explained that in the abstract, but too late now.

1. It is already happening, more women in developed countries are choosing to be childfree not childless 2.I'm thinking more of public information akin to anti-smoking campaigns to change social attitudes to procreation. Just banning it will make it more desirable for some.Smoking not our future3.I'm thinking more of a team of experts such as doctors, psychologists and social workers who can make a holistic judgement of the person.5.I was making the point that those with serious genetic faults are not necessarily excluded from being parents.4 and 6. Diversity is important in my scenario as it is not known what geneoytypes will be best suited for future Earth or other worlds.

I say in the story famine, disease and war were left behind as a hint that the sanctuaries are a response to very harsh conditions.

Though for academics intellect may seem the most important attribute of humans it is the opposeable thumb that has allowed us to develop technology through having the dexterity for engineering. There are many attributes of humans other than intellect that are important, being practical, being sociable, working well as a team member, having creative; artistic, musical or kinaesthetic talents and so on, selecting for intellect may diminish them (just a thought).

Don't worry about the scores now . I know from previous experience that the ranking changes dramatically especially towards the end of voting when many last minute votes are cast, Georgina : )

James Putnam

Judy Nabb,

An objective presentation. My knee didn't move. Thank you.

James Putnam

John Hodge

I echo G. Parry's comment.

Nature solved these problems a few generations ago. The technology increase is causing us to reevaluate our morals in many other areas.

Many ancient societies killed (exposed) babies born but unwanted. Some problems become evident only after birth. Would you comment on what to do with unwanted babies/children?

The other end of the life span has a similar problem. What to do with unproductive old people and, more restrictively, with people who want to die - assisted suicide?

Hodge

Judy Nabb

John,

The danger is desensitisation. It's the same human response as convincing ourselves that science is 'self correcting' when the real evidence shows it's far from it. For me the best reason for better pre-natal screening is to reduce the post natal problem.

The present case of the mother who killed her 3 children who had serious disorders is tragic. Should she be jailed? Committed? Clearly such stress is more than many humans can take. In a way we are to blame for leaving her to it with inadequate support. I genuinely think, not knowing the details, that after 'going through due processes' publicly that her punishment should perhaps only be compulsory therapy.

The issue is really about not encouraging parents of any other 'imperfect' children to believe they may have some right to take life.

Judy

Rick Searle

Hi Judy,

I wonder if your ideas regarding eugenics assume far to much genetic determinism than has proved to be the case. Back in the 1990's and right after the Human Genome was sequenced there was all sort of talk of finding the "gene" for this or that. I can remember articles about twins separated at birth who both ended up becoming firemen and loving pizza as if there were genes for both.

What we have found, for most conditions, is far more complex. Multiple genes interacting with environmental conditions go into the manifestation of any disease or behavior. There are effects beyond our own genes- microbial effects- implicated in diseases such as Crohn's and allergies which we are just beginning to understand. Genes obviously can't be the most important factor in violence given how societal levels of violence can vary within very short periods of time.

The immediate danger of eugenics rhetoric is that it gives parents a false sense of sovereignty over what their children will be like. The FDA is already investigating companies tapping into the competition anxiety of would be parents to peddle bogus genetic tests:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/25/us-23andme-fda-warning-idUSBRE9AO0MG20131125

Whatever one's view of abortion there are children already conceived who were not brought into the world because some parents falsely thought they had more control over the future than was actually possible.

Judy Nabb

Rick,

I agree. I'm concerned we're in danger of interfering too much through lack of knowledge.

ok it may be better for sensibilities to find major deformities and terminate earlier rather than later, and remember many will have another, healthy, child who may not exist had the disabled child been born. However he temptation is to go much further.

What happens is that we focus on purely physical attributes, easier to 'control' when our real shortcoming is in mental ability, i.e. more sophisticated intellectual capacity, reasoning power, objectivity and maturity. That means training our brains better AFTER birth.

Preventing war and advancing scientific understanding can only come from that approach. Take physics; It's not about advancement at present so much as maintaining status quo, childish spats and self aggrandisement. Just take a look at the 'Classical sphere's blog I'm discussing on at present. Peter Jackson has a ground breaking advancement in understanding but most are quite blind to it. The problem seems too endemic.

I believe it's clear that only improving mental abilities, visualisation powers and application of the potential we have will secure the future of mankind. If we better train people how to use their built in quantum computers the rest will follow.

Thanks for your interesting points. I'll read you essay too.

Judy

[deleted]

Dear Judy,

If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting to genetically enhance the intelligence of mentally second-class people like me and the rest of the world who are too blind as to see Peter Jackson's geniality.

My comment is hidden in a more easily understandable story: A ship is suddenly facing an iceberg immediately in front of it. The captain decides: full power ahead and sound our hooter. A miracle happens; the ship stops still in time. All power is consumed for tooting.

Regards,

Eckard

topic/2021

[deleted]

Dear Ms. Nabb,

Your courageously written assay was truly illuminating, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. May I just make a comment about it?

As I have pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, everything in the real Universe is unique, once. Whether eugenic practices are adopted or not, each real baby that is born will be born in a unique fashion at a unique moment. Each real baby will have a unique appearance and composition. Each real baby will live a unique life.

Regards,

Joe Fisher

Judy Nabb

Joe,

I agree entirely. Not only no two people but no two cells are absolutely identical near the Planck scale. Even assuming electrons are identical will one day be proved a serious error I'm sure, but currently beyond our resolving power.

The 'difference' is one of the most important parts of our survival. As many people as there are with near fatal allergies to bananas will survive the most devastating event to hit Earth.

I'll certainly read your essay given the time.

Judy

Peter Jackson

Judy,

Nice essay, very brave, and important, and agreeing my own conclusions on intellectual evolution. I suggested in my '2020 vision' essay we may have a step change in 10 years, but I'm not yet entirely convinced. The theoretical rut may now be too deep.

My ears perked up today what I heard a plug for a BBC radio 4 programme tomorrow (tues)at 11.00am discussing that very thing. If you aren't aware or don't catch it I'll try to listen and report back on it. You've now got me very interested.

Well done and thanks for your support of my own thesis and essay as describing as a significant break through. I'm pretty devastated so few seem to have seen the implications yet. You're one of the few with a head NOT buried somewhere without a view! Thank you for restoring my faith.

Best wishes

Peter

Peter Jackson

Ooops, sorry, I missed it. May be on BBC 'I player', if we can find what it was called!

Do see Alan Kadin's essay. It's gives a well argued case for for population reduction. Any ideas how without virtual babies? Can we solve the big issue at the same time by only letting highly intelligent people have children? Who decides what intelligent is? I suspect many considered 'intelligent' now actually aren't.

Peter Jackson

And is this really a good thing? Human cloning by nuclear transfer confirmed.

Peter Jackson

Judy,

Thanks for your supportive comments on my blog. I'm check and ensure Doug didn't misunderstand about both spin 1 and spin 1/2 being covered.

While here I do recommend you read Ross Cevenst's interesting essay if you haven't yet.

Best wishes

Peter

Judy Nabb

Peter,

That's a shame, I missed it too. I'll read the Kadin essay when I get a chance but I'm overloaded with marking and exam work at present.

I rather shudder at the though of human cloning. It's not eugenics and I think fraught with serious issues. Those doing it shouldn't be left to decide how far they go.

Judy

(P.S. You may have missed a post in the spheres blog)

Tihamer Toth-Fejel

Dear Judy,

I don't understand why you shudder at the thought of human cloning, but seem to condone genetic engineering. What is the difference? At least with the cloning of an adult, you have a proven DNA sequence that you knows works. With genetic engineering, it's a brand new experiment every time (on a non-consenting human no less).

I can see that you tried to be even-handed in your arguments, and I commend you for that. There are a few issues that you didn't seem to address in your essay:

1. Designing children tends to turn them into means, not ends. In other words, these children exist for the benefit of the parents, not for the child him or herself. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to show that once we start turning people into objects, it will not end well.

2. You asked a brilliant question: Who is the patient? As I pointed out in my own essay ( Three Crucial Technologies - your critical comments and score are welcome!), Theodore Sturgeon challenged his readers to "Ask the Next Question!" Which in this case is: What objective criteria you use to decide who that patient is? If personhood is determined by who holds the most power... well, that will not end well either.

3. In my essay, I discussed the rapid pace of technology, described by Kurzweil's Law of Accelerated Returns. Some technologies have a doubling time of 18 months (most famously Moore's Law) and some are faster, while others have a significantly slower rate. But few are as slow as human reproduction. So given improvements in nanotechnology and space launch technologies, how is genetic engineering, either in the form of augmented selection or targeted DNA manipulation going to have much impact? Also, do you think Freitas' design for Cell Repair Nanorobots for Chromosome Replacement Therapy will make genetic engineering as we know it obsolete?

Sincerely,

Tee

Peter Jackson

Judy,

I see your essay is on the brink, I hope it gets in. Thanks for your support. our appreciation of addressing fundamentals over symptoms is rare and valuable. I know you're travelling but we may currently be closer than you think, send an email to the address in my end notes an we may even get to meet up. If you get a moment do also look at Alex Macrea's slightly fantastical version of eugenics, but who knows what the future holds.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Domenico Oricchio

Thank you for reading my essay.

I think that the technology, and the politics, can help to obtain a best world, if they are used well: I think that the environment change the genetic, the technology, the politics in a similar way, it is only necessary to act not as individuals, but as a democratic society.

Your essay is interesting.

I think that there are problem with unethical eugenetic, for example is right to choose the gender of the future child (in India)? Is it right to terminate a future child like Hawking? The phenotype don't give, until now, information on intelligence, ethic, but the human life determine the persistence; I am thinking that a good practice is to require to have not child for person with severe genetic disease, with adoptions or egg donation, rather to use the eugenetic.

I read of Chinese study for eugenetics of the intelligence, to obtain more intelligent people, but the problem is that there is not a natural selection of the intelligent people, so that it is possible to have intelligent persons without good interaction with the other people (asociality), so that I think that the human life is the better choice for the better individuals (there are some characters that cannot be evaluated, now and forever, with a genetic study).

I am thinking that a natural eugenetic is obtained helping the best individuals to perpetuate the species, with grants, houses, facilities; this is a usual method that governments apply to choose the best individuals in the best position, and the ethical problems disappears.

Judy Nabb

Dominico,

I fear the ethical problems may not disappear that easily. Eugenics of the intelligence may be essential to promote advancement. For instance I'm having a conversation with a full professor in the blog on the EPR paradox solution and his shortcomings in applied logic (for a mathematician) are shocking. Yet arrogance means all are convinced they're brilliant!

That sort of thinking in such positions is probably the greatest barrier to intellectual and scientific advancement we face. I don't think the Chinese, or any study has found any solution. We first have to ask what is intelligence? And are social skills equally important (in the above case those mirror the logic level).

There are essays here with brilliant new scientific perceptions able to propel us rapidly in the right direction. Peter Jackson's is certainly one. He's correctly termed the real problem as 'intellectual inertia'. My foray from my own field deeper into physics has been shockingly enlightening.

The entrenchment of flawed doctrine here seems to be a massive block to progress. It's commonly justified as 'rigorous falsification' but is quite the opposite. Eugenics can't yet help. That's where far better education is needed.

Thank you for your kind comments. I hope your essay does well.

Judy

Don Limuti

Hi Judy,

Very nice reminder that we are steering the future eugenically, and perhaps we should be more conscious about it. Thanks for the fine essay.

Don Limuti

Judy Nabb

Thank you Don. Much of humanity and certainly theoretical physics seems to be blundering around blindfolded. My broader field also shows the symptoms which is why I felt the need to write my essay. To steer we must first know where we are, and are heading.

Judy