Having read the article Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain by Anne Kerr, Sarah Cunningham-Burley and Amanda Amos, I came to discover a completely different point on the subject of genetics than the one I previously had instilled in me. Over the past few years I've heard quite a bit about the new genetics movement and I recently learned about the eugenics of the 20th century (thanks in part to a political science class I took) and its detriments to society. I've been fixated with the idea that new genetics could possibly be a positive one that could have great benefits for society, but as I read this article I deciphered the language used by the group of scientist and clinicians and, like the writers, I discovered parallels to the propagandistic language used the scientists and clinicians of the new genetics movement and the old eugenics movement advocates. As I was reading I agreed with many of the points presented by the scientists and clinicians that champion the new genetics movement but noticed the stark difference they wanted to make clear between eugenics and new genetics. The writers of the article posed really thought provoking comparisons in the rhetoric used by eugenics scientists and the new genetics scientist. Intrinsically, I compared the two differing arguments and came to the conclusion that they are similar in some ways, but at the end of the day, societal pressures do play a role in determining whether one chooses to abort or alter a fetus. The new genetics scientists made the argument that eugenics was part of totalitarian governments, but as the writers point out, it also occurred in the U.S. and continues in a mutated form The disdain that society places on the ill and disabled, in addition to the financial struggles faced by many, makes individual choice a bit clouded and blurred and the techniques used in counseling lean toward pressuring patients and that puts in on par with the forced eugenics movement. As disability activists argue, it's the same old thing but aimed at the disabled and those with behavioral and genetic diseases. I agree with the writers that the arguments posed by the scientists in favor of new genetics are very well positioned and their rhetoric serves as a vehicle to distance new genetics from eugenics. However, I also agree that it is, in essence, much of the same rhetoric that was used during the eugenics movement but with different wording and emphasis, so I think that greater and more sophisticated research must be conducted in order to prevent any possible abuse with the new genetics movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment