Article contents
The New Eugenics and Medicalized Reproduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995
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
- 12
- Cited by