Introduction
Eugenics can be viewed as a field of applied science or a biosocial movement that advocates for the use of practices that are aimed at the improvement of genetic make up within a given human population. It is a movement that received much popularity among progressives and was highly associated with the Nazi Germany as well as the discovery of molecular evolution. As a scientific field the underlying argument that it present is that the human race can be improved through activities such as controlled breeding. This is a field that was coined following the intervention of science in the quest of seeking a solution to addressing the social ills that were on a verge of increase (James, 2000). In this regard the scientific field as well as social movement was on its quest of ending the social ills that faced many communities through the use of genetics and social engineering. The argument offered in this is that the social ills were to a large extent influenced by the genetic make up the individual rather that the social aspects as argued in other discussions. As such ending the streak of social ills within the society involved the use of controlled breeding with the aim of eliminating the undesired genetic make up linked with social ills. In simple terms it can be understood that the perception presented by eugenics is that social ills were made by individuals owing to their genetic make up. In this regard it was viewed that ending the genetic lineage of individuals involved in social ills would put an end to the social ills that the society faced (Buchanan et al, 2001).
Controversy
The scientific field of genetics has played a major role in the provision of means that aid in the understanding and identification of particular phenomenon as well as condition. However, human genetics is coupled with complexity while coupled with aspects such as culture and psychology undermine the means of determining how desirable a trait might be. Based on the fact that diseases have a wholly negative effect, eugenics offers the perception that elimination of certain genetic compositions can eliminate genetic diseases whose effects upset the society in general. However, based on genetic science it has been deemed that some diseases confer immunity to other diseases while other genetic diseases can increase susceptibility to illness as well as other dysfunction and deformities (Buchanan et al, 2001). As such it can be understood that other traits have both positive as well as negative effects that can not be addressed in the context of eugenics.
This has the implication that the practice does not put an end to the society fight against certain diseases. This is owing to the fact that it fails to address the nature of the effects whether positive or negative that arise owing to genetic response of an individual to certain diseases. From an ethical perspective it can be viewed that eugenics has an outcome of unethical practices. This is an argument that is drawn upon a hypothetic scenario. As such it is viewed that any racial group within the society that is favored by essence of being the majority can render other groups to eugenic programs by virtue of their minority (Dieter, 2004). This is viewed in the sense that a racial minority group than is rendered as less intelligent in the society can be subjected to the program by the racial majority group rather than the least intelligent members contained in the given population. In this regard it is viewed from an ethical perspective that eugenics does not solve the problem of social ills but rather creates an avenue through which social ills can take place. This is based on the fact that it can offer an upper hand to certain groups within the society that then mistreat other groups on this basis.
The underlying argument is the fact that eugenics is unethical owing to the unethical practices that result from its applications. Scientific interpretation in the field of human genetics has implied human genetics as to be diverse. As such the polices coined by eugenics foster the loss of such diversity in the sense that a long term application of a species-wide eugenic plan can result in the elimination of traits that are deemed as undesirable thus reducing the diversity by definition. The underlying argument in this is the fact that while eugenics is in the light of eliminating the undesirable traits within the society, these traits offer genetic diversity which is lost in the wake of eugenics (James, 2000). The argument behind eugenics faces much difficulty in the case of eradicating single gene mutations as is the case in a heterozygous recessive trait.
This is based on the fact that elimination of the unwanted traits does not involve carriers of the gene who may lack or have fewer phenotypic effects of the gene. This implies that only the dominant allele from the gene pool is eliminated while their complete elimination requires knowledge of the complete genetic make up of the whole pool. This is on the hand coupled with impossibility based on the fact that genetic testing in detecting the entire heterozygous recessive trait involves a greater cost with the current technology. The fact that only a few of the traits deemed as undesirable are dominant makes the practical value of elimination low (Currell et al, 2006).
Conclusion
The underlying argument in this discussion is that eugenics is unethical as well as practically impossible based on its intentions. It as well affects the balance of nature by interfering with genetic diversity while from a medical perspective it fails to address the positive effects that certain traits and diseases render to the society. In light of this argument eugenics is highly criticized as a practice that lacks justification owing to the ills it presents compared to the ills it is deemed to solve.
References
Buchanan, A. et al. (2001). Violations of reproductive freedoms: From Chance to Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Currell, S. et al. (2006). Popular Eugenics: National Efficiency and American Mass Culture in the 1930s. Athens, Ohio University Press.
Dieter Kuntz. (2004). Deadly medicine: creating the master race. Washington: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
James D. (2000). A passion for DNA: Genes, genomes, and society. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
