Melissa Hodgkins

2015 July 10

Genetic Utopia?

          As the semester progressed my interest turned from historical utopias to utopia’s treatment of genetics. And yet, I find the two concepts, historical utopia and genetics, are easily connected. It’s true that in recent times genetics seem to have taken a forefront in our nation’s consciousness. We are aware of how traits, or genes, are inherited from parent to offspring. The science is relatively simple. Your genetic code is comprised of twenty-three sets of chromosomal pairs (or forty-six chromosomes) one chromosome per pair is inherited from each biological parent. These codes known as DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) are the information containing molecules in each cell within the human body and are essentially the home of each individual’s genetic inscription. DNA determines sex, eye color, hair color, skin color, height, etc. (http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna.htm). These proteins are at the center of eugenic history.

          What is eugenics? According to the Oxford Dictionary eugenics is the “science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/eugenics). Separate the definition into two components: the first sentence, then the second. When we look at eugenics as a process of improving the human condition and passing on stronger, healthier genes to our offspring, eugenics sounds ideal, utopian even. It also seems familiar. After all, “We are already, in important ways, a “eugenic” society. We already tolerate or embrace surgical enhancements of our physical appearances… We already advertise… drugs like Zoloft and Paxil which promise to make anxious people “happy”… Some of us already pick and choose embryos based on their genetic characteristics or sex, taking what we like and discarding what we don’t” (Cohen 154). This is not a judgment, but rather an observation of our culture and our relative comfort with genetic interference.

          Where does “useful” or utopian eugenics cross the line and become dystopian? The word eugenics is difficult to separate from its Nazi past. While the Nazis perverted the theories of eugenics in order to call for the extermination of Jews and other populations that were deemed genetically undesirable, eugenics found its genesis in the search for a culture that prized merit over money and deemed eugenics as a source for discovering genius and fostering its growth. Hoping to separate the ability of individuals with merit from those who simply had money or connections in order to foster opportunity seems utopian. As Michael Burleigh writes in his article entitled “Eugenic Utopias and the Genetic Present” “with its initial Galtonian emphasis upon increasing the diminishing stack of genius, eugenics appealed to health and welfare professionals, already espousing meritocracy” (60). These ideals seem a world away from Nazi concentration and extermination camps, and the cruel genetic experiments inflicted upon prisoners by the infamous Dr. Mengele. “There were moments when his death mask gave way to a more animated expression, when Mengele came alive. There was excitement in his eyes, a tender touch in his hands. This was the moment when Josef Mengele, the geneticist, found a pair of twins”. “At Auschwitz Mengele did a number of twin studies, and these twins were usually murdered after the experiment was over and their bodies dissected. He supervised an operation by which two Gypsy children were sewn together to create Siamese twins; the hands of the children became badly infected where the veins had been resected” (http://auschwitz.dk/Mengele.htm). And yet, Hitler’s Final Solution, which called for the extermination of all Jews, gypsies, invalids, and others deemed unfit or undesirable built their justification for genocide, cruel experimentation, and forced sterilizations upon the science of eugenics. This is the conundrum. . . . What are the moral, ethical implications that come with genetic interference and manipulation? Where does a society take a stand? It is easy to feel outrage in retrospect; it is another to anticipate the ethical implications of the future.

          These ethical questions that I pose, I am unable to answer. While a future that may be offering freedom from “the maladies both of body and mind” (Cohen 155) is appealing, where does genetic and scientific inquiry become dangerous to the individual, to privacy, and to the condition of the human being? Again, I do not have these answers, but I find asking these questions lead me to where science has already taken us. In his article entitled “New Genetics, Old Quandaries: Debating the Biotech Utopia” Eric Cohen brings us up to speed:

In 1997, we cloned a mammal; in 1998, we isolated human embryonic stem cells; in 2000, we composed the “first draft” of the entire human genome; and in 2001 we cloned human embryos… At the same time, research proceeds in novel areas like artificial wombs, man-animal hybrids, and the screening of embryos according to their genetic traits (155).

While these advancements and experiments sound like they come right out of a speculative fiction novel like Oryx and Crake, where pigoons are used to grow and harvest human organs and are then thrown into the human food supply and where Crake genetically modifies both humans and animals to the danger and attempted extinction of humanity, these are scientific inquiries at the brink of existence. These ethical and moral questions are not in a distant future, they are more immediate than that. It is easy to see why the history of eugenic manipulation can give us pause. And more importantly, we should consider the future generation and the cost they may have to pay for our quest to achieve a utopian ideal. Are the rewards worth the risk?

          I remain skeptical and even frightened of the possible implications that eugenics and genetic discovery pose for our future. It would be easy to use reason to make an argument for eugenic based ethnic or social cleansing in a not-so-distant future where scarcity and over population could bend the moral backbone of a nation’s leaders and be used as a means of population control that could detail state involvement in reproductive rights, genetic-based screening for education and employment, just to name a few possibilities…

          It does not take a scientist (because I am not one!) to see the connections between utopian fiction like Oryx and Crake, historical utopias (or rather, dystopias) like Nazi Germany, and the study of human genetics. While the potential for human advancement, for the eradication of disease and debilitating genetic abnormalities are embraced and celebrated within our scientific and social communities utopian and dystopian narratives fictive, historical and scientific offer us a glimpse into the dangers of eugenics devoid of moral and ethical boundaries. The question moving forward will be where to draw the line between advancing human potential and destroying humanity as we know it.

Works Cited

http://auschwitz.dk/Mengele.htm

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/eugenics

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna.htm

Burleigh, Michael. "Eugenic Utopias and the Genetic Present." Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 1.1 (2000): 56-77. Web. 9 July 2015.

Cohen, Eric. "New Genetics, Old Quandaries: Debating the Biotech Utopia." The Human Life Review 28.1-2 (2002): 153-58. Web. 9 July 2015.