Our Posthuman Future?

1. Our Posthuman Future? Genetics, Eugenics and Politics

2. Eugenics • the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

3. Eugenics - Brief History • Widely popular concept in 1910-20s West • Influenced US immigration policy and used in Europe for the 'mentally unfit' • Favoured by many on Left and Right, including Fabians like the Webb's (LSE founders) • Nazis used it extensively • Post-WWII backlash against it in West, but not so much in East Asia (i.e. Chinese sterilisation law of 1995)

4. Eugenics & US Immigration Policy, 1910s/20s: A Case Study • Influence of Eugenicists like Harry Laughlin, also Eugenics Society & Eugenics Research Association, 1920s • Laughlin charged by House Immigration Committee to prepare eugenic reports on immigrants, 1920-31 • Laughlin reports on the over-representation of immigrant stock in asylums and prisons. Seen as evidence of lower genetic fitness. Likely to degenerate the American race stock.

5. Harry Laughlin on Eugenics and Immigration Policy, c. 1923 • 'You have to recognise the fact that although we give opportunities in this country, everybody is not educable. This backwardness is not all due to environment, because our field studies show that there is such a thing as bad stock...family stock should be investigated, less we admit more degenerate "blood".'

6. Eugenics as Pseudo-Science • Eugenics corrupted by existing nativist anxieties • Pseudo-scientific justification based on limited evidence • Insufficient attention to cultural causes and also to accuracy of data collection • Role of bias: blacks found underrepresented in asylums, but this was put down to the fact that they were shielded from mainstream society on plantations

7. Individual & State-Sponsored • Positive vs Negative; Individual vs State • Individual-level: Choice of marriage partner (light-skin in Indian subcontinent, Latin America, Asia); abortion; infanticide (I.e. favouring sons in Korea & China) • State-level: Compulsory sterilisation (I.e. of mentally 'unfit'); Encouraging marriage and procreation among educated (Singapore) or racially pure (Nazi 'sonnenkinder')

8. Eugenics: Old Tools • Selective Breeding and Pronatalist policies encourage ‘desired’ groups to have children • Sterilisation, Immigration Restriction or even Genocide removes ‘undesired’ groups • Result is a ‘fitter’ population stock

9. Advances in Biotechnology • Fukuyama (2002) • Technology can alter social relations (cotton gin-slavery; agriculture-serfdom; TV/Internet-freedom) • 4 Pathways to the Biotech Future: • Uncovering genetic causation • Neuropharmacology • The prolongation of life • Genetic engineering

10. Advances in Biotechnology… • Uncovering genetic causation: can now look into the black box of 'human nature' (not just twin studies & cultural anthropology) • Neuropharmacology (ie prozac, ritalin) - can alter human 'nature'. Chemical trumps psychological therapy • Already has altered our sense of responsibility/agency

11. Neuropharmacology: Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) • In Huxley’s famous novel, dystopic individuals took a drug called ‘soma’ to provide pleasure • Doped individuals achieved a truncated version of pleasure, lost their humanity (human nature) • Or is that just our humanist prejudice? What is so great about human nature or the negative range of emotions?

12. Gerontology • The prolongation of life. Related to advances in stem-cell research • Stem-cells - undifferentiated; sourced from embryos; highly controversial • Could lead to an older, feminised North and young male South • Could lead to soaring dependency ratios

13. Genetic Engineering: Overview • Identifying & altering/adding/replacing genes • Cloning is not genetic engineering. Will come first (I.e. Dolly the Sheep) • Identification: Sequencing of Human Genome • Identification is the first step: pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and screening is the logical outcome

14. Genetic Screening • Today we already have amniocentesis and sonograms as well as 'methods' for producing a boy or girl • Cheap sonograms have led to unbalanced sex ratios in East Asia • Genetic screening could lead women to select embryos with 'designer' characteristics (IQ, sex, hair colour) • This is a more powerful eugenics tool • Even this is limited to the naturally available embryos, however

15. Genetic Engineering I • Can step outside the 'natural' range of possibilities • Engineering likely quite difficult due to complex interactions of genes (as well as legal barriers). BUT, can still try • Alteration I: Somatic gene therapy - Can alter genes in one person who receives treatment for all their genes

16. Germ-Line Engineering • More powerful than somatic gene therapy. Involves just one change to DNA in fertilized egg. • Passed down through generations • Could affect human 'nature' if diffused widely • Our ability to subjectively connect to all humans, past and present, may be in danger • We may no longer share the same consciousness, trials, joys, reasoning

17. Benefits • GM crops eliminate need for pesticides • Can target and eliminate hereditary diseases • Bring genetically deficient up to a certain minimum base level (??) • Physical disabilities (deafness, blindness, etc) • Mental disabilities • Minimum Intelligence level • Minimum attractiveness level

18. Dangers • Unintended consequences of complex systems like our biology • Could alter what it is to be human - we thus lose 'innate' cord connecting us all with each other across place and across the generations (range of emotions, reasoning) • Genetic divide between haves/have nots could lead to two species

19. Are We on the Brink of a Major Social Revolution? • Silver argues that there is a knee-jerk reaction against the possibilities of positive genetic engineering • Genetic Engineering will be irresistable to parents

20. Are We on the Brink of a Major Social Revolution?… • Will lead to rise of a ‘GenRich’ group – able to afford enhancements and a ‘GenPoor’ group • May reach the point where the two species cannot breed and do not interact

21. Ethical Proponents • Libertarians, backed by scientists and the elderly/diseased - so long as individuals choose and state does not coerce, genetic engineering is OK • No such thing as human nature. Just an illusion. Human 'natures' instead. • Left (in theory) - State-sponsored genetic engineering could reduce inequalities and provide an alternative to traditional moral improvement

22. Ethical Objections • Religious (Man created in God's Image) • Natural Law Ethics: will alter our fundamental human nature. What makes us human. Defined as species-typical emotions and reasoning. • Liberal-Egalitarian arguments: 1) children have no choice about how they're designed; 2) inequality could result from differing genetic endowments

23. Political Implications • This issue may divide both Left and Right (Republicans try not to touch it) • Will certain jurisdictions permit more experimentation and become 'havens' (ie. German biotech firms have labs in USA) • Global regulatory regime needed • What if certain countries/individuals choose to 'improve' themselves. Will this force all others to compete?

24. Positive Views of Disease Correction (‘Negative Engineering’)

25. Popular Resistance to Human Genetic Engineering…

26. Popular Resistance to Human Genetic Engineering…

27. Global Regulation Moves Against Enhancement • Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Dignity with Regard to Biomedicine, Article 13 : "An intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants.“ • Signed by 31 (75%) of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe • 17 other countries – mostly western (including UK), have passed laws or regulations that explicitly or implicitly proscribe inheritable genetic modification

28. Summary of Public Opinion • Most people are against ‘positive engineering’ to enhance a baby • Most people are in favour of ‘negative engineering’ to remove disabilities – though 20-35% oppose even ‘negative’ genetic engineering • BUT, 10-40% (usually around 10-20%) favour positive engineering

29. Public Views Pose Major Dilemmas • Where is the line between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ engineering? (I.e. negative appearance, weight) • What if some people want genetic engineering and others (or other countries) are willing to provide it? • Will this force others to follow?

30. What Are People Not Saying? • Most oppose enhancement in principle, but what would they do in practice? • Would people use the technology if available? • Experience with sonograms, scans, plastic surgery, drugs – suggests that a significant proportion will act within the bounds of what is marginally acceptable

31. Conclusion • Eugenics has a long history. Even private mate selection sometimes embodies social norms • Old eugenic tools were pronatalism and sterilisation; new tools opened up by neuropharmacology and especially genetic engineering • Though most oppose genetic enhancement, it is not clear what will happen if a determined minority are able to use it • Will genetic engineering change human nature or are we irrational to fear it (and should we embrace its benefits?)