Or is unintentionally channeling them is my conclusion from reading his latest WaPo Op-Ed entitled, "The Eugenics Temptation". This Watson nonsense has somehow convinced all these conservatives that lurking beneath the surface of every scientist is a seething eugenicist, biting at the bit to escape and kill off all we see who are inferior. I've agreed with Gerson on a thing or two, but this essay is a real stinker.
"If you really are stupid," Watson once contended, "I would call that a disease." What is the name for the disease of a missing conscience?
Watson is not typical of the scientific community when it comes to his extreme social application of genetics. But this controversy illustrates a temptation within science -- and a tension between some scientific views and liberalism.
The temptation is eugenics. Watson is correct that "we already accept" genetic screening and selective breeding when it comes to disabled children. About 90 percent of fetuses found to have Down syndrome are aborted in America. According to a recent study, about 40 percent of unborn children in Europe with one of 11 congenital defects don't make it to birth.
...
This creates an inevitable tension within liberalism. The left in America positions itself as both the defender of egalitarianism and of unrestricted science. In the last presidential election, Sen. John Kerry pledged to "tear down every wall" that inhibited medical research. But what happens when certain scientific views lead to an erosion of the ideal of equality? Yuval Levin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a rising academic analyst of these trends, argues: "Watson is anti-egalitarian in the extreme. Science looks at human beings in their animal aspects. As animals, we are not always equal. It is precisely in the ways we are not simply animals that we are equal. So science, left to itself, poses a serious challenge to egalitarianism.""The left," Levin continues, "finds itself increasingly disarmed against this challenge, as it grows increasingly uncomfortable with the necessarily transcendent basis of human equality.
Aside from the obvious absurdity of such statements, I find it offensive how willing these conservative commentators are to deny the humanity of scientists and liberals. For one, the data quoted in the article stands in direct contradiction to this statement. Think about it. "...90 percent of fetuses found to have Down syndrome are aborted in America" so are 90% of us liberal? Are 90% of Down's kids born to liberal parents? 90% of Down's kids are born to evil eugenicists scientists? Of course not. But 100% of us are human, and humans have a very real tendency to want their children to be born with every advantage possible, as close to perfect as the parents can manage. This isn't liberalism, this is human freaking nature, and if anything it exposes the hypocrisy of the right wing's stance against abortion. They yell and scream it should be banned but clearly for large numbers of conservatives aborting fetuses for genetic disorders abortion is only proscribed for other people.
These attacks from Gerson and the ID cranks deny the humanity of scientists and liberals. They are based on small-minded and simplistic bigotries of right-wingers, that ignore their own participation in this problem, and try to lay the blame with those who have the decency to at least not be hypocrites. Further, there is not a trend towards eugenics among scientists as a group. This is a tendency in people, to want to improve their fitness and the fitness of their offspring. Scientists know that eugenics, historically, was not practiced in a scientifically-legitimate way but was instead racism masquerading as science. Ideology and bias was the basis of the eugenics movement, not rigorous observation and collection of data. If anything it's the the Disco Institute's behavior that resembles the bad science of eugenics. I tire of having members of my profession, and a broad swath of people being denigrated for being somehow morally incomplete and inhuman as if we are to blame for this tendency.
We will have to address the ethics of eliminating and propagating certain traits in our offspring as the science improves and we have the ability to screen for positive or negative traits. We've all seen Gattaca, we get it. But it doesn't help when these assholes sit around saying it's our problem, or a defect in our morality, when clearly they engage in this behavior too, only while hypocritically mouthing platitudes against it. We should acknowledge the desire to artificially improve the biology of our offspring is ultimately a very understandable motive for people, and instead of casting blame on the scientists who have figured out how it all works, come to an understanding of what will be acceptable and unacceptable based on a balance between the rights of individuals and society.
- Log in to post comments
After this post, I'm considering giving up this blog.
"I find it offensive how willing these conservative commentators are to deny the humanity of scientists and liberals."
How is humanity being denied here? Saying that something despicable is tempting is not the same as saying that a certain group of people is doing that thing.
"Are 90% of Down's kids born to liberal parents? 90% of Down's kids are born to evil eugenicists scientists? Of course not. But 100% of us are human, and humans have a very real tendency to want their children to be born with every advantage possible, as close to perfect as the parents can manage."
Well, if every minor learning disability is considered a defect that should be removed (as Watson, Clinton, and Hitler believe...), then I hate to think that those people are parents polluting children with that nonsense. That's one screwed up thing that you're claiming is just a human tendency.
"it exposes the hypocrisy of the right wing's stance against abortion."
It exposes the fact that their bigotry against some minorities is greater than their outrage over abortion. There are so many people who believe ADD, Downs, autism, etc make it nearly impossible to bring up a kid, that they'd gladly abort people with those conditions without fairly considering the issue. I suspect that more than a few white southerners would consider aborting "defective" black babies if they found themselves with them too.
As you just said a minute ago, parents want their children born with every advantage possible, so why not give up a black child in favor of getting a white one later?
"These attacks from Gerson and the ID cranks deny the humanity of scientists and liberals."
I'm not an ID crank or any other sort of crank. Up 'til now, I've really enjoyed reading this blog and appreciated some of the thorough debunkings here. Some of your other more recent posts that similarly get into name-calling of people who disagree with you have made me a bit uncomfortable, but this is the first time that I can be sure that you've crossed a line.
Further, it's quite clear in that article that "Watson is not typical of the scientific community", and the record clearly shows that Watson is disturbingly pro-eugenics. This isn't a ridiculous accusation hurled at liberals or scientists, it's an accurate take down of a tempting but disturbing view that Watson has succumbed to.
"Further, there is not a trend towards eugenics among scientists as a group."
Funny, I could have sworn I just saw that type of thing in the article. Now who's acting like a crank with a persecution complex?
"This is a tendency in people, to want to improve their fitness and the fitness of their offspring."
Given the option of having a son who is a dumb jock who is considered "sexy" but has no real skills, or having a son who is autistic, friendless, and bright enough to win a nobel prize, I'd pick the son who would make me proud and advance humanity over the rotten fool who'd just advance "fit" genes a bit further. If "fitness" is measured by traits that increase odds of reproduction, then we're looking at a scary future ran by stupid people. Surely this shouldn't be the measure of which children are worth having!
"Scientists know that eugenics, historically, was not practiced in a scientifically-legitimate way but was instead racism masquerading as science."
That is true, but using race as the only factor is just a way of being politically correct. Eye-color, religion, intelligence, "gayness", learning disabilities, and things like Downs have also all been used as the deciding factor instead of race. This is America though, and hating black people is seen as distasteful but hating autistic people can get you a spot on the view.
Reputable scientists aren't to blame for eugenics, but on some level the right-wing morons are correct when they say that genetic research enables this kind of thing. It's hard to do prenatal testing if you don't know what genes to look for, and you can't abort a Downs-probable fetus if abortion is illegal.
Watson, of course, is in a category of his own here.
I think you misunderstand why I singled this article out by Gerson. I'm not suggesting support of eugenics or that people should be able to prospectively abort based on characteristics which don't harm survivability. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of those who say the problem is the evil scientists and libruls creating this problem when clearly this is something the entire population is doing.
We have to create a code of ethics for this, it's true, and there will be have to be some provision for aborting a fetus based upon certain genetic characteristics, for instance a lethal trisomy, or if parents are carriers for a rare and dangerous genetic disorders they may use pre-implantation genetic screening for embryos that carry the gene. I don't think anyone will cry if cystic fibrosis, or the thalessemias are eliminated.
When it comes to designing children with specific traits, I agree, this should be forbidden for multiple reasons. The issue I take with Gerson is saying that knowledge or liberalism is the cause for the selection of traits we are seeing now. It is decidedly not the cause. The impulse of parents to give their children any advantage is the cause, however short-sighted they are being about it. Don't mistake my empathy for parents for condoning the selection for any trait considered unpopular at any given time.
I strongly suspect that within the scientific community the level of sympathy for Watson's views on eugenics and race is somewhat greater than many assume. To be sure, these are minority views which many scientists find abhorrent. But Watson, due to his Nobel and perhaps his age, is much less inhibited than most of those with similar opinions.
I agree that this is not just a liberal or secular issue like some social conservatives want to characterize it as. The implications of these technologies are moving from hypothetical ethical questions to social realities our whole civilization is going to have to come to terms with. And it will not be limited to prevention of debilitating genetic syndromes, but also interventions to "improvement" human beings.
Dawkins, in his typical politically tone-deaf manner, addressed the issue.
http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_…
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"
The tranhumanist movement is trying to advance the discussion in their oddly millenarian style.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19626251.800
"This is the opening session of the ninth annual meeting of the World Transhumanist Association (WTA) in Chicago. Sandberg and his fellow transhumanists plan to bypass death by using technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), genetic engineering and nanotechnology to radically accelerate human evolution, eventually merging people with machines to make us immortal."
Shalini Sehkar
http://scientianatura.blogspot.com/2007/08/rethinking-eugenics.html
"If there is indeed a way to breed humans for certain abilities, what's stopping the next eugenics revolution (this time based on modern science) from happening? Should we or should we not attempt to stop it? What are the arguments that might lead us to conclude that it is or is not a good idea?"
(I wouldn't dismiss Sehkar as merely an obscure blogger; she is a very smart woman.)
By the way, the use of the phonetic spelling "libruls" to convey a dialect associated with stupidity has a classist or at least regionalist ring to it, even if that is unintentional. One of my evolutionary biology professors had a Southern accent.
Let me just briefly note that certain views on eugenics (a general term that covers many different, sometimes incompatible, views and policies) does not imply any particular view on race, and I am certainly not suggesting that Dawkins, Sehkar, or the transhumanist movement in general shares Watson's racialist ideas.
Libruls was more of a Rush Limbaugh thing I thought. I don't think of his accent as particularly southern. Considering I am a southerner, living in VA, that would be a strange attack.
Anyway, you bring up good points, the transhumanism movement needs to be taken seriously, and we do need to evaluate the ethics of everything from pre-genetic screening (which I think should be put to use for many genetic disorders) to abortion with diagnosis of developmental disorders. In fact, they might be correct. Without significant evolutionary pressure we may need to create an artificial pressure to prevent stagnation or accumulation of damaging phenotypes that things like modern medicine ameliorate. I don't know, I don't think anyone does. But it's a mistake to say that any artificial genetic manipulation is wrong, and it's clearly wrong to say that all genetic manipulation is ok.
You're right; Limbaugh does pronounce it that way. I guess that's a reminder for me not to assume things too hastily.
I agree that navigating a responsible course between the excesses of both bio-Ludditism (Rifkin, Kass...) and biotechnophilia with be neither an easy nor simple task.
As you just said a minute ago, parents want their children born with every advantage possible, so why not give up a black child in favor of getting a white one later?
Can you explain how one would "get a white one later"? Hope you both have the gene for hypomelanism and just keep trying? Is it even possible for white kids to give birth to a black (sic) baby?
Recognize an asshole? Try sendahole.com.
I always find amusing the standard response of pro-life campaigners when confronted with Down's Syndrome. I very rarely see one of them respond to the situation with an attempt at argument - they always fall back immediatly to pure emotion. Often it involves pointing to a Down's child and giving some wet-tissue line such as "Look how much love this one has to give!" or "But he/she can still laugh and cry!" Often followed up with a more direct attack: "Pro-choicers want to kill this adorable child!"
"Is it even possible for white kids to give birth to a black (sic) baby?"
I dont think so. The reverse can happen, very rarely. But albinos have other medical problems.