The new eugenics and why should you care?

[madmusic]

We often quip, sometimes more seriously, about the Darwin Awards and who should be taken out of the gene pool. That's nothing new and as most of you know already, there was a strong eugenics movement in the early 1900s that sterilized mostly "promiscuous girls," some as young as 11 or 12. There were some criminals thrown in for good measure, but it was mostly girls. Though the gender has turned (for the most part, but only in porportion), history is repeating itself.

The new warning started at at innocent enough http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2007/01/the_debate_grow.html">article at the CrimProf Blog: "The Debate Grows Concerning Kinship DNA Searches."

So, that's inevitable, isn't it?

Yes, it probably is, but one paragraph caught my eye:

Frederick Bieber, a medical geneticist and professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School who has written about the investigatory potential of kinship searching, says the use of such a technique could increase the rate of “cold hits,” or DNA database matches, by as much as 40 percent.

Although he is not a lawyer, Bieber says he’s not aware of any state statute that prohibits the practice. In fact, he doubts that anybody even contemplated the possibility of such a search at the time the state’s DNA database statutes were written. Bieber also says that every legal challenge to DNA data banking to date has failed because the courts have uniformly held that the interests of public safety outweigh an individual’s right to privacy.

Many legal experts agree.

Again, so what? But as we know here at DU, there are often spider webs behind a name, so a Google found http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/netgov/2006/05/science_article_finding_crimin.html">this article. Quote:

The article is co-authored by Frederick R. Bieber, PhD, a medical geneticist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Associate Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School; Charles H. Brenner, PhD, a forensic mathematician and Visiting Scholar at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley; and David Lazer, PhD, Director of the Program on Networked Governance and Associate Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

“We demonstrate that the kinship analysis methods routinely used for humanitarian mass disaster and missing persons identifications could also be used to identify criminals who are close relatives of those in the rapidly expanding offender DNA databases,” says Bieber.

Still, so what? But what is the http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/netgov/html/">Program on Networked Governance? Click the link to find out, but from there is a link to genewatch.org and this story:

http://www.genewatch.org/sub.shtml?als=539491">Use of the DNA database for genetic research

The main function of the NDNAD has been to provide matches of DNA profiles from crime scene samples with the DNA of known individuals. This kind of analysis does not require any interpretation of the genes found in a person's DNA and is in that way similar to fingerprint matching.

However, DNA has the potential to be much more powerful. It can, for example, identify a person's relatives, or can tell if someone has certain genetic conditions such as Sickle Cell Anaemia or Huntington's disease. Research is also being undertaken to try and use DNA to identify someone's racial origin or appearance.

Research on most collections of DNA - known as biobanks - is governed by the Human Tissue Act but the Act does not cover the collection or use of DNA for "purposes related to the prevention or detection of crime". There is a similar exemption in the Data Protection Act to the requirement for consent to collect and process genetic data.

Researchers have been allowed to use both the DNA profiles on the National DNA Database and the linked DNA samples for genetic research. Unlike other genetic databases, the people on it have not been asked to give their consent to this research.

GeneWatch has undertaken a series of requests under the Freedom of Information Act to find out what research is being undertaken and how the decisions on access are made. The following summarises the main findings so far.

The requests revealed:

* lack of transparency about what research is being done and how decisions are made, and failure to keep complete records;
* approval of controversial genetic research on ethnicity, using both the Database and DNA samples, including analysis of the male Y-chromosome without consent;
* continued lack of any ethical oversight;
* failure to distinguish between projects to assess and/or improve the Database and research to generate new commercial products;
* retention of a "mini-database" by at least one commercial supplier of DNA profiles to the Database and failure to properly oversee research by such suppliers;
* lack of democratic oversight for new operational uses, such as familial searching (searching for relatives of a suspect), or searching for named individuals or specific DNA profile information;
* lack of transparency about who can receive specific or named DNA profile information (including foreign countries), or why such requests are being made and granted.

Here is why you should care. During the previous eugenics scare the idea was to start with the sterilization of the bottom 10%, then then next, then the next. At some point, there weren't sure when, the "germ plasm" would be pure. One problem though, what about those carrying dormant bad genes? That could be anyone, like you. What if you are carrying a dormant criminal gene, or disease gene, or mental illness gene, or any of of a host of other imperfect genes? So even though you may condone that other guy's genes getting cut, you might be next to prevent you having criminal or mentally ill or deformed or diseased children. There might be a 70% or 50% or 10% chance your genes could pollute the gene pool. When perfection is the goal, any chance is too much.

Dr. Bieber says 40% of the current DNA database is from Blacks, and that it wouldn't be fair to them to use kinship analysis on their DNA. Where did this concern come from? It's simple: Dr. Bieber wants a DNA sample from everyone, you know, just to make it fair.

He's an adviser to the Department of Defense, too, and I bet they would love to have that database toy. Just another tool in their war against... what will be it be?

[krispos42]

1. I kind of wondered when this would happen

I always thought that one day science would be able to take a sample of DNA from a crime scene, throw it in some sophisticated DNA machine, and recreate what that person looks like. Facial features, bone structure, hair and eye color, race, and gender would all be calculated. The police could then take that DNA information and age-progress it every decade so we could see the criminal at age 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc. Even calculate the recession of the hairline.

Then they could run sixty years worth of age-progressed photos through the DMV and other government photo database and find a match visually.

[Kiouni]

2. The Gov. should stick to anal probes

and leave my poor little genes alone!

[Dogmudgeon]

3. We're putting the cart before the horse

We often lose sight of what is behind new technology being put to bad ends. The real threat isn't the development of new technologies, but the persistence of "good old fashioned" tyranny.

THAT is what we need to strike at. Not genetic technology, not cameras, not voice or linguistic analysis or anything else; just the tyranny itself. Human life, and the technology it creates, will not be safe until humanity has "retired" tyranny, fascism, and the urge to control the loves of other people.

And until we've reached that point, we won't be safe from any technology. Or philosophy. Or power-hungry schemer.

--p!

[badgerpup]

4. *puts on flame-retardent suit...*

Eugenics is not necessarily a bad word, or a bad thing...
There ARE some things that the human gene pool really doesn't need.
And before you accuse me of advocating it for 'the other guy', I'm not... I've got some genetic kinks that really don't need passed on, so I have made the choice to not do so.

It's a toss-up between "I don't want to put any putative child of mine through what I've gone through" and a sense of genetic/social responsibility...although I didn't develop the latter until after I'd had a few biology courses.

It's just my own humble opinion that a greater awareness of what genetic baggage one is carrying is would be beneficial before deciding whether to pass it on.
But then, I'm an idealist...I also think that the having of children should be a concious and thought-out decision and not something that happens accidently or by force. :shrug:
I realize this isn't an ideal world, not by a long shot.

[piesRsquare]

5. "Mostly on promiscuous girls"--horseshit!

Forced sterilization was performed on mostly women, yes.

The "mentally ill" (many, in fact, weren't!), mentally challenged/retarded/handicapped, and epileptics.

There are American women still alive today who were sterilized without their consent (or knowledge) because they have epilepsy. Eugenics laws were on the books all the way up until 1979.

Don't give me this "social responsibility" crap. I have epilepsy. Find a cure; don't violate my civil (and Human) rights!

[no_hypocrisy]

7. Welcome to DU.

Buck v. Bell legitimized state-compelled sterilization in the 20s. Oliver Wendell Holmes speaking for the Supreme Court thought that "four generations of imbeciles is enough". Well, it depends upon the criteria for "imbecile" which was loosely interpreted to include poor, uneducated, and simple citizens. The holding for this case still is in effect, it just hasn't be used lately.

The Third Reich adopted OUR eugenics/sterilization program for their purposes. Henry Ford was all in favor of it.

[madmusic]

16. That is true...

I didn't mean to discount the any of them. The terms in the "war against the weak" evolved:

Idiots and Idiocy
Feebleminded
Mentally Retarded
The Moral Imbecile
Degenerates
Criminal Imbecile
Defective Delinquents
Psychopaths

It is likely to go back in the reverse direction with more and more popular support, first with freedom of choice then with government regulation as eugenics is accepted again.

[pitohui]

18. may i respectfully ask you something?

if you knew for certain that your epilepsy was caused by a gene you carried, wouldn't you choose not to pass it on?

i would not pass on my genetic heritage, it doesn't quite seem fair since i have the technology to prevent it

to my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong, please) much epilepsy seems to be environmental or of unknown origin, but it just seems if you knew for certain that your child would suffer, you'd rather have that knowledge ahead of time

to me, more knowledge allows for better choices

[formercia]

9. you had the option to decide

Free Will is a very important right and it should not be under control of anyone except for the individual exercising that right.

[madmusic]

12. Are you saying the government should decide or not?

JUSTNET Justice Technology Information Network ...a snapshot of Criminal Justice beaurocracy:

JUSTNET belongs to the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC), in turn a part of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) which is the research, development, and evaluation agency of the US Department of Justice (USDOJ). For undeniable proof of the Military and Prison Industrial Complexes entrenched alliance, look no further than NLECTC West , which shares its physical headquarters, reasearch facilities, and technological knowhow with The Aerospace Corp.

(The purposes of the corporation are exclusively scientific: to provide research, development, and advisory services. Aerospace operates a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) for the Department of Defense (DOD). The corporation's primary customer is the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) of Air Force Space Command, although work is performed for other agencies, international organizations, and governments in the national interest.) - aero.org

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:XIKbkkm7ac4J:www.javierarbona.net/prisonlinks.html

[Pithlet]

22. Making the decision not to pass on your own genes is hardly eugenics.

Eugenics is a very bad thing. It's one thing to make that decision for yourself, and quite another for society to make that decision for you. There is nothing good about eugenics. Eugenics is not the study of bad genes. It is the weeding out by society of those "bad genes" by force. That's a very important distinction.

[tbyg52]

6. That bottom 10%, *they're* the problem!

And just who gets to decide who they are? *There's* the rub. (And the hole in all this "eugenics" crap.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It's invasion of privacy, or potential discrimination, not 'eugenics'

because nowhere have you pointed to anything about sterilisation or execution. So why have you brought in the scare-word "eugenics"?

[madmusic]

13. Because it's scary?

Or because this is only the beginning? Why does the government want everyone's genetic code? You tell me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Perhaps to track people

but you're still failing to tie this to eugenics in any way. What you appear to be saying is "they could do anything with this". But you can say the same about a birth certificate - it's just as useful for eugenic purposes. That doesn't mean that compulsory registration of births was for eugenic purposes.

[madmusic]

23. Oops, bad example, birth certificates

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/Home.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED351212&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&objectId=0900000b8012a284">Eugenics, Race Integrity, and the Twentieth-Century Assault on Virginia's Indians.

This paper documents efforts made by some Virginians in the first half of the 20th century to promote and maintain racial separatism. In the early 1920s, the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America were founded in Virginia, and the leaders of this group successfully persuaded the state legislature to pass, in 1924, the Race Integrity Act. This Act created two racial groups in Virginia: white and colored. Anyone who could not prove himself or herself white was classified as colored for the purposes of birth records, marriage licenses, school attendance, and death certificates. Much of this paper focuses on Virginia's first Registrar of Vital Statistics, Walter Plecker, and his campaign to preserve the integrity of the white race, which he perceived to be threatened. Under the Race Integrity Act there was no valid means of determining racial status, so Plecker had the opportunity to make subjective decisions about the rights of people to marry, to designate the race of their own children on birth certificates, and to claim a racial heritage of their own choosing. Plecker devoted a great deal of time and energy to discounting the claims of Virginia's Indian peoples to their heritage. The legislative, bureaucratic, and judicial means Plecker and others sought to use in these efforts are recounted. (DB)

There is also a book that covers eugenics in the South: http://www.eppc.org/publications/bookID.51/book_detail.asp">Preaching Eugenics by Christine Rosen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. So you're anti-birth certificate too?

Sorry, I missed your threads on them - perhaps you could link to them? It seems a very good example to me - like DNA, they gives indications of who is related to whom. But if you are also campaigning against birth certificates, I'll be interested to see if you've achieved anything, and what other DUers reactions have been to your arguments about birth certificates. Still, it's good to know that births have been officially registered in many countries for well over a century, but they haven't been used for eugenic purposes in the vast majority of cases.

[madmusic]

29. Here's a quote for you...

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." - George Orwell

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. What's this got to do with eugenics?

[madmusic]

14. You can't see it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. No.

It's got to do with genetics. Sort of. But genetics and eugenics are two different things.

[madmusic]

25. This may help make the connection (good paper!)

Troy Dusteris currently a professor of sociology at New York University and he also
holds an appointment as Chancellor's Professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
He is past chair of the Board of Directors of AAC&U, and a member of the AAAS
Committee on Germ-Line Intervention. He is President-elect of the American
Sociological Association. A former member of the Assembly of Behavioral and Social
Sciences of the National Academy of Sciences, he has served on the Committee on Social
and Ethical Impact of Advances in Biomedicine, Institute of Medicine. From 1996-98, he
served as chair of the joint NIH/DOE advisory committee on Ethical, Legal and Social
Issues in the Human Genome Project (The ELSI Working Group). He is the former
director of the Institute for the Study of Social Change at the University of California at
Berkeley.

Troy's books and monographs include The Legislation of Morality (1970), Aims and
Control of the Universities (1974), Cultural Perspectives on Biological Knowledge (co-
edited with Karen Garrett, 1984), and Backdoor to Eugenics (Routledge, 1990), a book
on the social implications of the new technologies in molecular biology. The second
edition of Backdoor to Eugenics will be published in September (2003). He is also the
author of a number of works including articles in Politics and the Life Sciences, The
Genetic Frontier: Ethics, Law and Policy, and DNA and Crime: Applications of
Molecular Biology in Forensics. His most recent publications on this topic are "The
Sociology of Science and the Revolution in Molecular Biology," in J. Blau, ed.,
Blackwell Companion to Sociology, 2001, and "The Social Consequences of Genetic
Disclosure," in Ronald Carson and Mark Rothstein, eds., Culture and Biology, Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999.


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:quXeLt21ouQJ:www.sencer.net/pdfs/Backgrounders/MolecularBiologicalRevolution.pdf">Some Social Implications of the Molecular Biological Revolution
Troy Duster
New York University


If molecular genetics and the emergence of group-based research agendas fractured the
public health consensus, we can expect an even more dramatic parallel development
when it comes to discussions of the public safety. It is almost inevitable that a research
agenda will surface to try to find patterns of allele frequencies, and then create computer-
generated genetic profiles of different types of criminals. As I will demonstrate, “ethnic-
affiliation estimations of allele-frequencies” is high on the research agenda in forensic
science (Lowe, et al, 2001). But like the phrenology of the 19th century, these markers
will be precisely that, “markers” and not explanatory of “the causes” of violent crime.
Even if the many “causes” of criminal violence (or any human behaviors) are embedded
in the full panoply of forces that begin with protein coding, there is interaction at every
level, from the cellular environment all the way up through embryological development –
to the ways in which the criminal justice system focuses on one part of the town and not
another when making drug busts. We are bemused today about tales of 19th century
scientists who sought answers to criminal behavior by measuring the sizes and shapes of
the heads of convicted felons. The new IBM computers can make 7.5 trillion
calculations per second for biological chip analysis. These are sirens beckoning
researchers who wish to do parallel correlational studies of “population-based allele
frequencies” with “ethnic estimations” and groupings of felons – a recurring seduction to
a false precision. Before turning to the complex set of forces converging forensic science
and molecular biology, it will be useful to briefly review some of the biomedical
controversies that are surfacing.

[aikoaiko]

11. I still don't see a eugenics implementation program in what you wrote.

Care to point it out?

[madmusic]

15. They want the map before they start the trip...

What do the think the government will do with that information?

[Bridget Burke]

19. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Don't go looking for logic here. No link with "eugenics" was established.

[madmusic]

24. Be stupid! Be very stupid!

And ignore it. Our government would never want to promote eugenics. Follow the links, or not. Whatever.

[pitohui]

17. if i had a dormant bad gene i would want to know

in any case i chose not to have children as i would never wish on an innocent child to be born w. my limitations -- sometimes the bad gene is NOT dormant!

the world is not short of people, i don't understand why science cannot be used to make sure every child is wanted and has the best possible start in life

it's too bad that evil men seized on eugenics when it wasn't a science, but now we are developing the science -- we could seriously look at breeding terrible diseases out of the human genome -- i don't understand how we could possibly stand in the way of that

in another thread, someone complained about breeding down's syndrome out of the human gene pool, i'm sorry, if we can't even agree that no one should have to suffer from down's syndrome if we can do anything to prevent it, i give up, it's hopeless, because we are just doomed to wallow in failure because some people really just can't tolerate progress -- if it wasn't there for them, why should it ever be there for anyone? the old misery loves company attitude, i suppose

[madmusic]

26. Progess?

The "science" of eugenics was progress. I have a nephew who has a Down's daughter. Their choice, and they love her. That is not to say there won't be benefits from embryonic stem cell research, but many scientists and sociologists are very concerned with good reason. Evil men did not seize on eugenics. They were actually very good and moral men, like you.

As Troy Dustin wrote:

The revolution in molecular biology has already had considerable impact on how
individuals, members of families and social groups think about each other – and it has
also influenced how we avoid, insure, stigmatize, and “explain” each other. As
developments move along from theory to possible practical application, they engage us in
a new kind of urgent dialogue about moral, ethical and social underpinnings of deeply
held beliefs that otherwise lie dormant.

[ConsAreLiars]

27. Woody Guthrie had Huntingston's Disease.

He gave birth to Arlo. Does any sane person think we, as a human species, are worse off as a result? Or maybe by preventing the birth of Stephen Hawkings? The eugenicists are monsters of the worst sort. Maybe sterilizing or simply killing THEM would be a better approach to improving the human condition. Nazis, all of them, and all who support their agenda.