Commentary on Eugenics

Envision a future where supposedly “superior” genes were sold as commodities to anyone who could afford them. In such a future, one could mix and match prototypic traits to create their perfect “designer” baby. For a subscriber to the theory of eugenics, it would seem perfectly plausible. However, a skeptic, like myself, would find such a prospect disturbing.

Firstly, how is it possible to give an objective measure to superiority? There have been many studies by noted psychologist,Howard Gardner showing that there are many types of intelligences, including musical, didactic and spatial intelligence, which have no bearing on a person's IQ. Many studies also show that different ethnic groups excel in different types of intelligences. Also, some autistic people have been termed autistic savants, which means that they have peculiar talents although they are termed “mentally or physically disadvantage”.

An example would be Kim Peek, who not only has photographic memory, but also perfect pitch and is able to single out any instrument in any particular orchestra piece and play the chords and notes it plays perfect from memory. Is he really “disadvantaged”? Would it be wise to implement sterilization laws if we are unable to define inferiority or superiority? Are there really traits so inferior they need to be eliminated from the gene pool? Also, such tinted views on intelligence and its quantifier may have devastating impacts, especially when it is used to justify actions such as sterilization.

The theory of eugenics is based on the premise that all actions of a human being are controlled by whatever genes he or she was born with. That means not only are the person's biological features controlled by genes, even the person's intelligence, choice of spouse and future profession are premeditated, all in the womb. There have been studies that show that this is not the case, and that it is more a case of nurture over nature. An example would be how children with a lack of a certain protein cannot process phenylalanine in their bodies, resulting in mental retardation due to toxic buildup. However, if they stay away form foods containing phenylalanine, they bodies grow to be able to withstand such toxic buildups. There are many more examples of nurture over nature scenarios.

However, there are an equal number of studies that show that there is a correlation between intelligence and biological factors, which include height, race and even vocal Fach. The most dangerous assumption would be that race correlates to intelligence. Some studies have shown that in terms of intelligence quotient scores, East Asians and Caucasians score higher than Hispanics and Black people. However, these studies fail to include experimental controls like social conditions and income range. One study in the 1970s shows that when put in the right environment, 99 Black children scored(In terms of IQ) in the same range as Caucasian children of the same age. Racially tinted views on intelligence should not be condoned in the field of academic study.

In conclusion, eugenics is wrong because it stands on grounds of superiority in different groups and also assumes that superiority is quantifiable.