Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Ethics Watch
  • Published:

Did eugenics ever die?

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 3, page 408 (2002)Cite this article

When the Human Genome Project (HGP) was launched, scientists hoped that one of its applications would be the prevention, perhaps even the elimination, of 'birth defects'. This sounds laudable, until one tries to define which 'defects' need to be eliminated. Do these include cleft lip (considered serious and not treated, for economic reasons, in some countries), homosexuality, obesity (in the absence of a known genetic syndrome), Turner syndrome and deafness? 'Birth defects' are often culturally defined. Even genetics professionals don't agree on what constitutes a 'serious' disorder. Most of the 600 conditions listed by 1,400 geneticists in one survey appeared in both 'serious' and 'not serious' categories (Wertz & Knoppers 2002). What professionals did agree on was that families should make their own definitions. However, if everybody makes the same definitions, private decisions — for example, in favour of male gender — could become a social problem; vibrant communities (such as the deaf community) could disappear; 'prevention' could blur into enhancement. Sometimes science has unintended uses. For example, the main use of adult genetic testing is to establish paternity and, in some countries, prenatal diagnosis is most often used to select for fetuses of a particular gender.

Is the goal of the HGP disease prevention? Or is it empowering people to make informed decisions, even if these decisions are not 'preventive'? Or should the goal be to improve humankind by enhancing immunity or intelligence, something we already do by socially approved means that are not always equally available to all, such as by vaccination or private schooling? Whatever the goal, it is important to remember that genetics cannot solve all human health problems. Poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, war and oppression of women also contribute greatly to ill health.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Wertz, D. C. Eugenics is alive and well: a survey of genetic professionals around the world. Science in Context 11, 493–510 (1998)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wertz, D. C. & Knoppers, B. M. Serious genetic disorders: can or should they be defined? Am. J. Med. Genet. 108, 29–35 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Dorothy C. Wertz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wertz, D. Did eugenics ever die?. Nat Rev Genet 3, 408 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg832

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg832

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing