•  
  •  
 

St. Thomas Law Review

First Page

827

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Recent advances in the technologies of molecular genetics have generated a plethora of questions about how these technologies should be used and what, if any, constraints should be imposed on their use. Commentators on the use of the new genetic technologies have, on the one hand, emphasized the benefits to be realized from genetics research in terms of human health and welfare. On the other hand, a handful of critics have focused on the possible misuses of the new technologies and have urged surveillance of genetics and geneticists, lest we again fall into the morass of coercive, or forcible, eugenics. Genetics as a scientific discipline was born in ancient times and expanded rapidly toward the end of the nineteenth century with the discovery of "units" of heredity, or genes, and with the description of a number of continuous human traits. The study of genetics expanded to include classical, or single gene, inheritance, quantitative and population genetics, cytogenetics, biochemical genetics, and, ultimately, molecular genetics and the DNA revolution. Significant discoveries in all of these disciplines have realized countless benefits for the human population. Geneticists, as the scientists of genetics, have included ancient observers, the plodding Gregor Mendel, the elitist Francis Galton, and a host of scholars and physicians over the course of the twentieth century. Geneticists have been individuals of modesty, flamboyance, compassion, self-importance, and integrity, dedicated to the discovery of the genetic information that governs human life and health. In recent decades, the practice of medical genetics and genetic counseling has contributed immensely to human health and to the control of individuals over their genetic legacies. Eugenics was a movement dedicated to the perpetuation of genetic health and well being. From benign beginnings in England, with suggestions about having desirable children, the eugenics movement spread to the United States and Germany, where it became the subject of restrictive and punitive legislation and was tainted with fraudulent "science," racism and ethnic discrimination, and eventually horrendous programs of genocide. These travesties, in turn, tainted the meaning of the word "eugenics", so that it continues to evoke terror and suspicion. A more cautious use of the term distinguishes eugenics that is imposed from without, by government, and eugenics that is practiced from within, as a matter of personal autonomy, personal privacy, and personal liberty. The terms "genetics," "geneticist," and "eugenics" are not synonymous. The practice of some contemporary commentators of using these terms without offering correct definitions and making appropriate distinctions is intellectually dishonest and irresponsible. Further, this practice foments suspicion and distrust of an immensely important science and the scientists who are dedicated to understanding the human genome and to providing immeasurable genetic benefits to the human population.

Download

Share

COinS