Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:26:24.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Eugenics and Medicalized Reproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Jacques Testart
Jacques Testart
Affiliation:
Director of Research, L'UNITE INSERM, “Maturation gametique et fecondation,” Clamart, France.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

We know today that classical eugenics, of an essentially negative nature, was not only an aggressive and brutal practice but, like its positive counterpart, inefficient as well. In fact, numerous biological, sociological, and psychological events beyond our control arise to prevent the realisation of any eugenic plan. Thus, like all human beings, individuals whose procreation is encouraged by positive eugenics suffer unexpected mutations that are transmitted to their offspring by their gametes. Gene distribution among the gametes at meiosis is the result of an uncontrollable, natural lottery. As an effect of this lottery, positive eugenics could allow the birth of defective babies whereas negative eugenics precludes the birth of normal babies.

Type
Special Section: Designs on Life: Choice, Control, and Responsibility in Genetic Manipulation
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , Summer 1995 , pp. 304 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Testart, J. Le Désir du Gène. Paris: François Bourin, ed. 1992:286.Google Scholar

2. Strohman, R. Epigenesis: the missing beat in biotechnology? Bio/Technology 1994;12:156–64.Google ScholarPubMed

3. Handisyde, AH, et al. Biopsy of human preimplantation embryos and sexing by DNA amplification. Lancet 1989;1:347–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Liu, et al. Fertility and Sterility 1993;59:815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Muggleton-Harris, et al. Human Reproduction 1993;8:2197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Grifo, et al. Journal of the American Medical Association 1992;6:727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Xu, KP. Primer extension preamplification for detection of multiple genetic loci from single human blastomeres. Human Reproduction 1993;8:2203–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. West, et al. Human Reproduction 1988;3:1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Schrurs, et al. Human Reproduction 1993;8:296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Griffin, et al. Human Reproduction 1991;6:101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Munné, S, et al. Diagnosis of major chromosome aneuploidies in human preimplantation embryos. Human Reproduction 1993;8:2185–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Munné, S, et al. Fertility and Sterility 1994;61:111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Menezo, Y, et al. Improvement of human early embryo development in vitro by coculture on monolayers of vero cells. Biology of Reproduction 1990;42:301–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

14. Modlinsky, JSmorag, Z. Preimplantation development of rabbit embryos after transfer of embryonic nuclei into different cytoplasmic environment. Molecular Reproduction and Development 28:361–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Hubbard, R, Wald, E. Exploding the gene myth. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993:206.Google Scholar

16. Testart, J. L'Oeuf Transparent. Paris: Flammarion, 1986:219.Google Scholar

17. Testart, J. La Procréation Médicalisée. Paris: Flammarion, 1993:126.Google Scholar