Eugenics isn't evil - it may be Britain's best hope for the future

[Mark Jones]

Jasper Gerrard in The Times [03-07-00]:





"The science of improving the population by controlled breeding for
desirable inherited characteristics." This definition could almost have been
crafted for the advances that will follow the deciphering of DNA. It is
actually the dictionary definition of eugenics.
Because in our collective memories the words "eugenics" and "Nazis" are
entwined in unholy union, scientists have been playing Basil Fawlty. "Don't
mention eugenics" has been their mantra. But eugenics was not an evil
interlude of the previous century; it is the defining advance of the new
century. Fearing outrage (and grant cuts), the experts refuse to acknowledge
this, let alone debate ethics and endgames.

The tactic of giving false assurances was perfected by politicians. It saves
short-term controversy, but at a cost of long-term understanding. Would
Eurosceptics be so raucous today if Ted Heath had admitted that joining the
Common Market would lead towards a federal Europe?

Eugenics is not necessarily bad, only the uses to which it can be put;
clearly it is evil to attempt to wipe out a people from prejudice. But if it
were possible to rid cancer not just from one foetus, but from all future
children of that foetus, that would surely be a moral good.

And if it were also possible to increase the intelligence or reduce the
predisposition to violence of future generations, then how could that be a
moral regression? After all, we are not so liberal as to regard all human
action as morally equal. Parents are driven insane by attempting to improve
the minds and behaviour of offspring; if a scientist could do so with a few
snips in the womb, is that a "nightmare vision"?

With aesthetics, it is more difficult. For all our platitudes about how we
love diversity and idiosyncrasy, psychological tests show that our views of
beauty are remarkably similar. Women would rather look like Kate Moss than
Doris Karloff; men wish they looked like David Beckham, not Les Dawson. We
adore thin, we loathe fat.

Honesty is what is needed from Helena Kennedy - or Baroness Kennedy of the
Shaws as we should now style this lady in red - who is to preside over one
of those commissions beloved of governments too petrified to govern: it will
decide how far should we meddle with nature. Her task is not enviable.

Before she gets down to real business, she will need to allay false fears.
For example, she should explain that genetically modifying human beings is
not an assault on free will. We are products of our genetic and social
backgrounds; our freedom, such as it is, springs from how we react to the
random events of life.

Then, after patting scientists on the head for being jolly clever, she will
have to put them back in their box. As their silence demonstrates, they have
little to contribute to ethical understanding. They can explain "how", but
not "why". As for the question of "ought", I wonder if this is not too big
even for Lady Kennedy.

Ministers seem strangely impotent in the face of medical advance. Like David
Seaman, the hapless England goalkeeper, they stand motionless as another
shot loops over their heads into the net. If we do believe that most of what
springs from the genome project is good - and Tony Blair, to judge by his
hyperbolic pronouncements, does believe this - then we have to act now.

Last week I was privileged to meet John Sulston, who led the British team
deciphering the human genetic code. He was exercised that the main
beneficiaries of his research would be American pharmaceutical companies.
After so much British public and charitable money has gone into research, it
would be as terrible as it would be typical if British companies failed to
use his discoveries to develop the drugs that could save millions of lives.

Unfortunately, at this crucial juncture, British pharmaceutical companies -
until recently, one of our few industrial success stories - are in crisis.

Glaxo Wellcome has threatened to quit Britain as a result of the failure of
regulators to approve its new flu drug, Relenza, even for high-risk groups.
(The Wellcome Trust, incidentally, backed the genome project.) And leaks
suggest that the drug Interferon beta, which can help in the treatment of
multiple sclerosis, is to be denied to 10,000 NHS patients.

Medicine could be to this century what metal-bashing was to the last: our
premier industry. Central to this will be eugenics. Adequately controlled,
it can provide wonderful, life-enhancing possibilities for humankind. But
for a man so sceptical of the past and so beguiled by the brave new world,
Tony Blair is doing little to crack the political code needed for medical
and economic progress.