Eugenesia y determinismo genético. Una solución simple a un problema complejo

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Resumen: Los objetivos de este artículo son, primero, exponer el estado del arte de la eugenesia, cómo se desarrolló en el siglo XX, cómo es la nueva eugenesia y cuáles son las dos posturas ético-filosóficas actuales (bioconservadores y transhumanistas). En segundo lugar, sostener que existe un determinismo genético operante en ambos discursos, lo que provoca que el discurso eugenésico actual está siendo utilizado para proponer soluciones simples (genéticas) a problemas complejos (conductuales o sociales). El tercero y último objetivo es cuestionar las motivaciones que subyacen a la implementación de la nueva eugenesia.

Translated abstract

Resumo: Os objetivos deste artigo são, em primeiro lugar, expor o estado da arte da eugenia, como se desenvolveu no século XX, como é a nova eugenia e quais são as duas posições ético-filosóficas atuais (bioconservadora e transumanista). Em segundo lugar, argumentar que não há um determinismo genético operante em ambos os discursos, o que faz com que o discurso eugênico atual esteja sendo usado para propor soluções simples (genéticas) para problemas complexos (comportamentais ou sociais). Em terceiro e último é questionar quais são as motivações que subjazem a implementação da nova Eugenia.

Translated abstract

Abstract: The main goals of this article are first, to present the current situation of eugenics, how it developed during the XX century, the main characteristics of the “new eugenics” and the two current ethical-philosophical postures (bioconservatives and transhumanist). Second, to sustain the existence of genetic determinism in both postures, provoking the actual eugenic discourse is being use to propose simple solutions (genetic ones) to complex problems (conducts or social). Third and last, is to question the motivations laying in the implementation of the new eugenics.

Related collections

Most cited references 32

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children.

Julian Savulescu (2001)

Eugenic selection of embryos is now possible by employing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). While PGD is currently being employed for the purposes of detecting chromosomal abnormalities or inherited genetic abnormalities, it could in principle be used to test any genetic trait such as hair colour or eye colour. Genetic research is rapidly progressing into the genetic basis of complex traits like intelligence and a gene has been identified for criminal behaviour in one family. Once the decision to have IVF is made, PGD has few 'costs' to couples, and people would be more inclined to use it to select less serious medical traits, such as a lower risk of developing Alzheimer Disease, or even for non-medical traits. PGD has already been used to select embryos of a desired gender in the absence of any history of sex-linked genetic disease. I will argue that: (1) some non-disease genes affect the likelihood of us leading the best life; (2) we have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3) couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about non-disease genes. I will also argue that we should allow selection for non-disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality. I will focus on genes for intelligence and sex selection. I will defend a principle which I call Procreative Beneficence: couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information.

0 comments Cited 97 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

In defense of posthuman dignity.

Nick Bostrom (2005)

Positions on the ethics of human enhancement technologies can be (crudely) characterized as ranging from transhumanism to bioconservatism. Transhumanists believe that human enhancement technologies should be made widely available, that individuals should have broad discretion over which of these technologies to apply to themselves, and that parents should normally have the right to choose enhancements for their children-to-be. Bioconservatives (whose ranks include such diverse writers as Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, George Annas, Wesley Smith, Jeremy Rifkin, and Bill McKibben) are generally opposed to the use of technology to modify human nature. A central idea in bioconservativism is that human enhancement technologies will undermine our human dignity. To forestall a slide down the slippery slope towards an ultimately debased 'posthuman' state, bioconservatives often argue for broad bans on otherwise promising human enhancements. This paper distinguishes two common fears about the posthuman and argues for the importance of a concept of dignity that is inclusive enough to also apply to many possible posthuman beings. Recognizing the possibility of posthuman dignity undercuts an important objection against human enhancement and removes a distortive double standard from our field of moral vision.