--------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to the
Techno-Eugenics Email List Newsletter
Number 3
November 21, 1999
Supporting genetic science in the public interest
Opposing the new techno-eugenics
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Issue Number 3 of the Techno-Eugenics Email List
newsletter, as far as we know the only on-line newsletter
focused on the politics of the new human genetic and
reproductive technologies. If you're receiving this news-
letter for the first time, please see the instructions for
subscribing and submitting items at the end of this message.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We cannot find our humanity in our genes. But
because
of the increasing progress in genetic diagnostics and
manipulation, we will increasingly confront genetic
questions and problems that *challenge* our humanity."
--Craig Holdrege, Genetics and the Manipulations of Life:
The Forgotten Factor of Context (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne
Press, 1996, page 151)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTENTS
I. WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT: "The Ethics and Politics
of Human
Germline Engineering" (UC Berkeley, Sunday, December
5)
II. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND STATEMENTS OPPOSING TECHNO-EUGENICS
1. Anti-eugenics protest in London at Galton Society
2. John Horgan calls techno-eugenic predictions "irresponsible"
3. Jedediah Purdy on human genetic engineering
4. New article on human genetic engineering by Leon Kass
III. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND STATEMENTS PROMOTING TECHNO-EUGENICS
1. Time magazine provides forum for designer baby advocates
2. Developments in research on artificial chromosomes
3. Francis Fukuyama: The end of (human) history, reconsidered
4. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan predicts designer babies
5. Lester Thurow advocates genetic enhancement
IV. OTHER POINTERS AND NEWS
1. German philosophers debate eugenic engineering
2. New web site on early American eugenics movement
3. Japanese cloning researchers break the rules
V. ABOUT THE TECHNO-EUGENICS EMAIL LIST NEWSLETTER
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I. WORKSHOP ANNOUNCEMENT
The Case Against Designer Babies: The Politics and Ethics of
Human Germline Manipulation
Sunday, December 5, 1:00-5:00 pm, Sociology Department Commons,
402 Barrows Hall, UC Berkeley.
The workshop presentation will summarize the formal ethical
debate
on human cloning and germline engineering, and update participants
on the escalating campaign to promote these technologies.
The main focus of the presentation and the discussion that
follows
will be on articulating and developing a political framework for
opposing human germline manipulations. We will consider where
and
how to draw the lines that matter, and how to embed opposition
to germline engineering in a commitment to equality and democracy.
Registrants will receive a detailed agenda and logistics information.
To register, or for other information, contact Marcy Darnovsky
at
teel@adax.com.
Briefing materials from the September 10 workshop, on the
technologies of human genetic engineering, are available
from Rich Hayes at <rhayes@socrates.berkeley.edu>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
II. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND STATEMENTS OPPOSING TECHNO-EUGENICS
1. Anti-eugenics protest in London at Galton Society
This report from David King in London:
"On September 17, activists from People Against Eugenics
disrupted
the meeting of the Galton Institute, formerly the Eugenics Society.
The action prevented Arthur Jensen from delivering his Galton
lecture on race and IQ."
[Jensen is the UC professor of educational psychology who claims
that
the differences between African American and white American IQ
scores
are genetically caused, and who has urged `genetic foresight.']
"The decision of the venue (The Zoological Society of
London) to
close down the meeting also prevented Glayde Whitney of the
University of Florida from speaking on 'Reproductive technology
for a New Eugenics.'
"People Against Eugenics is supported by the National
Assembly
Against Racism, the Disabled People's Direct Action Network, the
Jewish Socialist Group and the Genetic Engineering Network.
"Roy Webb of the Disabled People's Direct Action Network
said:
`The Eugenics Society want to eliminate disabled people, black
people, lesbian and gay people and anyone else that they see as
not fitting into their view of society. We want to celebrate
difference and create a fully inclusive society.'
"David King of People Against Eugenics said: `This meeting
shows
that eugenics has not gone away and its philosophy has not
changed. The Eugenics Society operates behind the scenes, trying
to orchestrate a new eugenics based on reproductive technology
and genetics. We must not go quietly into their brave new
world of designer babies.'"
Here are excerpts from a story on the protest in The Guardian,
titled "Science Friction" (September 22, 1999):
"Biotechnology is the great new hope for eugenicists,
who have
long advocated `improving' the human race by controlling the
genes transmitted to future generations. New reproductive and
genetic technology, together with human cloning, has given birth
to what is being called the New Eugenics.
"Using biotechnology for social engineering is now becoming
a
popular issue among leading scientists. Robert Edwards, test-
tube baby pioneer and expert on pre-implantation diagnosis, was
quoted two months ago as saying: `Soon it will be a sin of parents
to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease.
We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality
of
our children.'
"Eugenics has long met with fierce resistance. In London
last
week, a conference of the Galton Institute--a charity which was
formerly the Eugenics Society--was disrupted by protesters.
Prof Glayde Whitney, from the department of psychology at Florida
State University, was about to talk on `Reproduction Technology
for a New Eugenics' when a protester told the audience of
academics and others that Whitney had written the foreword to
a book by David Duke, former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
For the complete Guardian story, see
<www.newsunlimited.co.uk/society/story/0,3605,84429,00.html>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John Horgan calls techno-eugenic predictions "irresponsible"
In his new book, The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain
Defies Replications, Medication and Explanation (New York:
The Free Press, 1999), John Horgan writes
"The Princeton geneticist Lee Silver cranked up the rhetoric
even higher in his 1997 book, Remaking Eden. Silver prophesied
that genetic engineering might one day divide humanity into two
separate species: the Genrich class, which can afford genetic
engineering, and the Natural class, which cannot. The Genrich
class will be supremely talented intellectually and athletically,
free of physical and mental illness, and possibly even immortal.
"These utopian (dystopian?) predictions are ludicrous--and,
coming
from leading geneticists, irresponsible--given the track record
of behavioral genetics thus far" (p. 161).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Jedediah Purdy on human genetic engineering
Purdy has also taken on Lee Silver. In his recently released
For
Common Things: Irony, Trust and Commitment in America Today (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf), he writes that
"Silver inadvertently expresses the defining moral danger
of
genetic engineering. He describes a world in which humanity,
as a condition that we have in common, has disappeared. In
this world, to call us equal would seem almost a conceptual
confusion. Equality is distinct from sameness, to be sure,
but it does suppose enough commonality that the same projects,
fears, and aspirations can make sense to everyone, and that all
face at least commensurable limitations and hazards. What care
we take for other people, especially but by no means only those
outside our immediate circles of love, is caught up with a sense
that we share a common vulnerability" (p 175).
Human genetic engineering "has the power to foster the
worst kind
of indifference. The conviction that our own desires are the
world's compass points is among the greatest barriers to genuine
respect for other individuals. The more able we become to treat
others as vehicles for our own aims, the less readily we conceive
of them as intrinsically important" (p 179).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. New article on human genetic engineering by Leon Kass
In "The Moral Meaning of Genetic Technology," Commentary,
September 1999, Leon R. Kass writes:
"[U]nless we mobilize the courage to look foursquare at
the full
human meaning of our new enterprise in biogenetic technology and
engineering, we are doomed to become its creatures if not its
slaves. Important though it is to set a moral boundary here,
devise a regulation there, hoping to decrease the damage caused
by this or that little rivulet, it is even more important to be
sober about the true nature and meaning of the flood itself.
"That our exuberant new biologists and their technological
minions
might be persuaded of this is, to say the least, highly unlikely.
But it is not too late for the rest of us to become aware of the
dangers--not just to privacy or insurability, but to our very
humanity. So aware, we might be better able to defend the
increasingly beleaguered vestiges and principles of our human
dignity, even as we continue to reap the considerable benefits
that genetic technology will inevitably provide."
Kass's essay is included in the forthcoming The Moral Boundaries
of Genetic Technology, Clarisa Long, ed., AEI Press.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
III. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND STATEMENTS PROMOTING TECHNO-EUGENICS
1. Time magazine provides forum for designer baby advocates
The November 8, 1999 special issue of Time Magazine is titled
"Beyond 2000." This compendium of pop-futurology articles
provides
a forum for designer-baby advocates Lee Silver and Matt Ridley
to
assert that germline enhancement and human cloning are inevitable.
Ridley argues that by 2025, "Many human beings, especially
those who
are rich, vain and ambitious, will be using test tubes...to clone
themselves and tinker with their genes....[F]ew doubt that it
will
be feasible to clone a person by 2025."
Lee Silver spins out a marketing plan for consumer eugenics.
He
tells the tale of a hypothetical fertility clinic that, in 2025,
begins to advertise for "Organic Enhancement." "The
response was
immediate and enormous," Silver writes. "The market
for organic
enhancement of newly fertilized embryos quickly overtook
infertility treatment."
Ridley's article can be found at
<www.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,33482,00.html>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Developments in research on artificial chromosomes
A Canadian biotech company reported in October that artificial
chromosomes inserted into the genome of mice have been inherited
by the engineered mice's offspring. According to the October
23,
1999 issue of the New Scientist, Chromos Molecular Systems of
British Columbia reported the experiment at a London conference
on biotechnology. Chromos says it will use the technology to
create herds of genetically modified animals whose milk will
contain pharmaceuticals.
The company says it won't let its technology be used in efforts
to manipulate the human germline. But advocates of human germline
engineering, such as Gregory Stock and John Campbell, argue that
artificial chromosomes will be the best way to attempt human genetic
manipulation. They believe that human artificial chromosomes
(HACs)
may overcome the delivery problems and the limited capacity of
viral
vectors, allowing them both to avoid interfering with natural
chromosomes, and to put into one package the multiple genes that
would be needed to produce most traits. (See TEEL #2, 10/5/99.)
For the New Scientist coverage, see
<wysiwyg://12/http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991023/newsstory6.html>
<wysiwyg://21/http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991023/editorial.html>
The Chromos web site is <www.chromos.com>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Francis Fukuyama: The end of (human) history, reconsidered
In 1991, Francis Fukuyama proclaimed the "end of history"
and the
triumph of "liberal democracy and a market-oriented economic
order
[as] the only viable options for modern societies." Now
Fukuyama
has revised his assessment in the light of the bright outlook
he
foresees for human germline enhancement.
In the summer 1999 issue of The National Interest, Fukuyama
repeated his earlier argument about the failure of social efforts
since the French Revolution to create "a new kind of human
being,
one that would not be subject to the prejudices and limitations
of the past." Fukuyama now believes that "biotechnology
will be
able to accomplish what the radical ideologies of the past, with
their unbelievably crude techniques, were unable to accomplish:
to bring about a new type of human being."
"Within the next couple of generations," he writes,
"we will have
definitively finished human History because we will have abolished
human beings as such. And then, a new posthuman history will
begin."
(Francis Fukuyama, "Second Thoughts: The Last Man in a
Bottle,"
The National Interest, Summer 1999.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan predicts designer babies
Here's a particularly egregious recent example of the irresponsibly
uncritical manner in which future applications of genetic
technologies are presented in the popular media, by both journalists
and noted academic bioethicists.
These excerpts are from "Baby, Oh, Baby: Nothing About
21st Century
Offspring Will Be Infantile: What's that on the horizon? It's
a
bird, it's a plane, it's Super Newborn" by Jonathan Dube,
ABCNEWS.com.
[In the 21st century] "we'll probably be able to order
up designer
babies with whatever features we desire. Or, if we prefer, simply
clone ourselves. `I do believe we'll go there,' says Arthur Caplan,
director of the University of Pennsylvanias Center for Bioethics.
`And it'll create a whole new array of ethical problems.'
"`Absolutely, somewhere in the next millennium, making
babies
sexually will be rare,' Caplan speculates. Cloning will be possible,
but Caplan expects it'll be little more than a novelty, as most
people won't be interested in virtually duplicating themselves.
"But many parents will leap at the chance to make their
children
smarter, fitter and prettier. Ethical concerns will be overtaken,
says Caplan, by the realization that technology simply makes for
better children.
"`In a competitive market society, people are going to
want to give
their kids an edge,' says the bioethicist. `They'll slowly get
used
to the idea that a genetic edge is not greatly different from
an
environmental edge.'....By the time these `smart' babies are born,
they could be taught via direct transmission of electrical impulses
into chips implanted in their brains. `You might download French
into the 3-year-olds brain directly,' Caplan says."
The full report can be viewed at
<http://abcnews.go.com/ABC2000/abc2000living/babies2000.html>.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Lester Thurow advocates genetic enhancement
In his latest book (Creating Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals,
Companies and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy, New York:
Harper Collins), MIT economist Lester Thurow writes,
"Some will hate it, some will love it, but biotechnology
is
inevitably leading to a world in which plants, animals and human
beings are going to be partly man-made....Giving genetic dwarfs
normal height is no different from making normal children into
basketball players. Suppose parents could add 30 points to their
children's IQ. Wouldn't you want to do it? And if you don't,
your child will be the stupidest child in the neighborhood"
(p 33).
"A hundred years ago our ancestors regarded wolves and
mountain
lions as we regard germs, and were as eager to eradicate them.
A hundred years from now, with partially man-made plants, animals
and human beings long accepted realities, what it means to talk
about the natural environment will be just as different. The
term `genetic defects' will have a widely expanded, very
different meaning" (p 116).
Thurow's comments demonstrate that the techno-eugenic vision
can
completely grab an otherwise reasonable, educated person--even
one
with no professional or prestige self-interest in the technology.
His enthusiasm for human genetic "enhancement" has no
necessary
relation to anything else in his book--but it makes clear that
what is at stake in the currrent debate over genetic engineering
goes far beyond "health, safety, and informed consent."
Note: Professor Thurow included his email address in a preface.
It is: lthurow@mit.edu. Please let him know what you think of
his
comments concerning biotechnology, and ask him for a response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. OTHER POINTERS AND NEWS
1. German philosophers debate eugenic engineering
"Anger as Philosopher Revives Vocabulary of Third Reich"
is the
headline of the Independent Online's coverage of Peter Sloterdijk's
September lecture titled "Rules for the Human Zoo."
Sloterdijk,
whom the Independent Online identifies as an eminent left-wing
philosopher, spoke of the benefits of "human breeding"
and
"steering reproduction." The lecture, delivered at
a Bavarian
castle to an audience of Jewish intellectuals, has sparked a
storm of public controversy in Germany, as well as condemnation
from Jurgen Habermas. For more on the debate, see
<www.philosophynews.com/news/19991001_habermas_vs_sloterdijk.htm>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2. New web site on early American eugenics movement
The Cold Spring Harbor DNA Learning Center is putting a complete
set of documents from the early years of the American eugenics
movement on a web site, to be online in January:
"Judging from a preview, it's a pretty powerful site,
featuring
a collection of troubling documents and pictures. There are
photos of men arranged as if in a police line-up, which purport
to show correlations between the size and shape of one's head
and one's intelligence; there is a photo of a young boy just
out of diapers who was identified as a likely potential criminal--
a determination based on the shape of his face. There are family
trees which track alcoholism and idiocy across the generations;
and there are photos of the "fittest families"--who
apparently
evidenced no undesirable traits."
-- Kristi Coale, Salon.com
<www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/11/17/eugenics/index.html>.
"Our current rush into "gene age" of the last
decades of the
twentieth century has striking parallels to the eugenics
movement of the early decades of this century."
-- Cold Spring Harbor DNA Learning Center discussion of the
Image Archive. Access the archive at
<http://vector.cshl.org/eugenics.html>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Japanese cloning researchers break the rules
"An attempt to repeat controversial experiments in which
human cells
were fused with cows' eggs has landed a team of Japanese researchers
in serious trouble. The Ministry of Education is now investigating
the projects as a breach of its ethical guidelines on human cloning.
The research was carried out a year ago by Setsuo Iwasaki's
team at
the Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology. Following
in
the footsteps of the company Advanced Cell Technology in Worster,
Massachusetts (New Scientist, 11 July 1998, p 4 and 21; November
1998, p 14), Iwasaki removed the chromosomes from 27 cows' eggs,
which he then fused with human cells--in this case cancerous blood
cells cultured from leukaemia patients.
When the Yomiuri newspaper ran the story of Iwasaki's experiments
last week, he told the paper that he hoped to isolate embryonic
stem cells---from which all the body's tissues eventually develop.
This would have meant culturing the hybrid embryo for about five
days, until it formed a hollow ball of cells called a blastocyst.
However, most of the embryos did not develop and none underwent
more than three cycles of cell division.
Iwasaki's work has been greeted with widespread concern in
Japan,
where guidelines designed to prevent human cloning bar researchers
in universities and other public research labs from fusing human
cells with eggs. He had not cleared the experiment with his
university, believing the guidelines did not apply to cows' eggs.
The university says that future proposals will be rigorously
screened by a new ethics committee."
(New Scientist, 20 Nov 1999 p 14.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
V. ABOUT THE TECHNO-EUGENICS EMAIL LIST NEWSLETTER
This newsletter stems from the work of academics, activists,
and others in the San Francisco Bay Area who are concerned
about the direction of the new human genetic technologies.
We support technologies that serve the public interest. We
oppose those--including human germline engineering and human
cloning--that foster inequality, discrimination, objectification,
and the commodification of human genes and tissues.
This newsletter is intended to alert and inform concerned
individuals about the new technologies and the techno-eugenic
vision. For at least the next several months, the newsletter
will be irregular (a couple times a month), informal, and
non-automated. We'd welcome feedback, and suggestions about
focus and format. A web site will be coming soon.
Marcy Darnovsky will moderate. Send submissions to her via
the email address below.
Unless we hear from you, we'll keep you on this list.
Please let us know if you don't want to receive the
newsletter---we won't feel rejected! On the other hand,
feel free to forward it to others who may be interested, and
encourage them to subscribe by reply to Marcy.
Marcy Darnovsky, Ph.D. Richard Hayes, M.A.
teel@adax.com rhayes@socrates.berkeley.edu