Is Dawkins wrong about eugenics?

[The Man]

This is a somewhat specious argument; naturally the people who favor eugenics would consider their proposed end goal (typically, "fewer impure/nonwhite people in society compared to pure Europeans") is an improvement, otherwise they wouldn't pursue it. But then, if you're one of those impure/nonwhite people, I'm sure that you not only wouldn't consider the situation an improvement, but would rather positively contend that it is the opposite. So you're essentially conceding that whether eugenics is "feasible" is itself subjective, and depends on whether you consider the proposed improvements to be improvements. Unless you're arguing that by "feasible" you just mean that killing or forbidding impure/nonwhite people to have children will eventually result in a net lower ratio of impure/nonwhite people to white people, which I don't think anybody attacking the feasibility of eugenics was questioning.

But that doesn't seem to be what Dawkins is arguing about though, because he's talking about genetic traits like "running" and "jumping" (which again, was never the kind of thing historically selected-for by eugenicists). Again redefining eugenics to simply mean "directed breeding", Dawkins argument can actually be simplified to "heredity exists", in which case thank you for bestowing this great wisdom upon us, Professor? But as above, I'm confident that this isn't what people who question the feasibility of eugenics are getting at; I think they're very definitely talking about whether or not the "improvement" really does improve anything, and it's actually Dawkins that is "missing the point" (or deliberately ignoring it and trying to force his own, which I can certainly see him doing).

As others have noted it seems to be his thing. Make controversial or tone deaf statements. Then when the rhubarb gets rubbed, come back and try to clarify. Maybe just his shtick for generating buzz.

 

[d4m10n]

ALS, aka "Lou Gehrig's disease". Can manifest at any point but most commonly does so in the 50s and 60s.

Would we call it "eugenics" if potential parents were forewarned about ALS carrier status before trying to conceive a child?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Would we call it "eugenics" if potential parents were warmed about ALS carrier status before trying to conceive a child?

Either that or "It's only Eugenics if it is bad" I guess.

That's kind of my take on it.

"Will we ever use Eugenics?"
"What do you mean will?"

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Even a gene that causes a terrible disease in the people who have it?

Yeah, we're doing this for merciful reasons.

Not at all like that brush we had with it about a century ago, they were doing it for...*checks notes*...

I've got bad news, guys...

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

ALS, aka "Lou Gehrig's disease". Can manifest at any point but most commonly does so in the 50s and 60s.

If you'll look back I'm asking for a case that would be a good example to answer the question Puppycow proposed: "Even [eliminating] a gene that causes a terrible disease in the people who have it?"

You would have to eliminate variations of 25 genes from the gene pool to cover the known genes capable of causing ALS. Even then you only reduce the incidence of ALS by only 10% because most cases of ALS have no known genetic component. The 25 genes to be eliminated aren't currently fully understood. Further you would have to eliminate currently healthy versions of those genes because some of the defects in those genes can spontaneously recur at any conception. Very few (maybe none even) of them are guaranteed to cause ALS. Most have to be combined with other damaged genes to lead to ALS.

ALS typically sets in at a late age and becomes debilitating even later. People can obviously live full productive lives with it, there are well known famous examples. The manifestation age you cited suggests most ALS victims have lived longer lives than fully 25% of the population prior to showing their first symptoms (and they continue to live well beyond first symptoms).

My opinion is Puppycow's question is too hypothetical to be useful. I don't think the example of ALS changes that. I think it's a case that show why his question is too hypothetical.

 

[Ziggurat]

So can someone provide an actual example for this currently hypothetical case?

Huntington's Disease.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Huntington's Disease.

See my post above about ALS.
Are you claiming that Huntington's Disease is a good example where you'd answer Puppycow's answer with "yes, let's eliminate the Huntington's disease gene"?

I came across HD while looking in to ALS. It has some of the same problems with the concept of eliminating the gene as ALS including the one that you would have to eliminate healthy variations of the gene in order to prevent new damaged copies from occurring in a few generations.

Both of these diseases sound like examples that would argue for genetic screening at conception rather than selective breeding.

 

[Ziggurat]

See my post above about ALS.
Are you claiming that Huntington's Disease is a good example where you'd answer Puppycow's answer with "yes, let's eliminate the Huntington's disease gene"?

If we could snap our fingers to make it happen, we absolutely should.

I came across HD while looking in to ALS. It has some of the same problems with the concept of eliminating the gene as ALS including the one that you would have to eliminate healthy variations of the gene in order to prevent new damaged copies from occurring in a few generations.

Well, no. Everyone has a version of the gene, it codes for a necessary protein. You can't get rid of the healthy version. It's true that getting rid of the unhealthy version won't prevent future mutations that produce the damaged protein, but that's true of all genes, and won't generally happen "in a few generations". If it did, we'd all have Huntington's. I think you've gotten confused with people who have "intermediate" repeats in the gene, which don't produce symptoms but become unstable to further mutation with more repeats that may affect offspring. But the "normal" gene is not unstable to further mutations. Getting rid of the mutated versions would drastically reduce the occurrence of the disease both now and in the future.

Both of these diseases sound like examples that would argue for genetic screening at conception rather than selective breeding.

Those are just two alternate methods of doing eugenics. One may be preferable to the other for moral or practical reasons, but it's still eugenics either way.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease#Genetic_mutation

Well, no. Everyone has a version of the gene, it codes for a necessary protein. You can't get rid of the healthy version.

There are many variations on the healthy version the way I understand it. And there is also variation within the unhealthy ones.

It's true that getting rid of the unhealthy version won't prevent future mutations that produce the damaged protein, but that's true of all genes, and won't generally happen "in a few generations".

I don't know what you mean by generally but according to the article I cited 10% of HD cases are due to a new mutation. I'm taking that to mean that you would have to eliminate healthy variations on the gene that are close but not over the repeat count of 36 cited in the article (that's assuming you want to also eliminate mild or late onset cases of HD).

If it did, we'd all have Huntington's. I think you've gotten confused with people who have "intermediate" repeats in the gene, which don't produce symptoms but become unstable to further mutation with more repeats that may affect offspring. But the "normal" gene is not unstable to further mutations. Getting rid of the mutated versions would drastically reduce the occurrence of the disease both now and in the future.

Can you cite which variant you think is the "normal" gene and it's stability?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay we really, really, really need to be 100% clear here before someone speaks with any thing less then 100% unambiguous clarity and the pearls start being clutched so hard they turn into diamonds.

There is a difference between "It would be a better world if people were never born with Factor X" and "It would be a better world if people with Factor X were never born."

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you cite which variant you think is the "normal" gene and it's stability?

The table shows <27 repeats as "normal", and the text says "Trinucleotide CAG repeats over 28 are unstable during replication". So normal range is not unstable during replication.

And even if you only eliminated cases where the parent had the disease and didn't do anything about the intermediate genes, a 90% reduction in cases is still worth something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay we really, really, really need to be 100% clear here before someone speaks with any thing less then 100% unambiguous clarity and the pearls start being clutched so hard they turn into diamonds.

There is a difference between "It would be a better world if people where born without Factor X" and "It would be a better world if people with Factor X where never born."

Good point, this is an important distinction.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Those are just two alternate methods of doing eugenics. One may be preferable to the other for moral or practical reasons, but it's still eugenics either way.

Had to look this up. Yeah, I'll go with that.

In the context of the conversation between Delphic Oracle and Puppycow I'm not sure screening for a variation on a gene counts as "eliminating a gene".

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The table shows <27 repeats as "normal", and the text says "Trinucleotide CAG repeats over 28 are unstable during replication". So normal range is not unstable during replication.

And even if you only eliminated cases where the parent had the disease and didn't do anything about the intermediate genes, a 90% reduction in cases is still worth something.

I agree with that.

But, in releation to Puppycows question, this isn't as simple as eliminating a gene. And how confident is our knowledge that eliminating (by whatever method/definition) all variations with 28 or more repeats will have no unintended consequences?

 

[Ziggurat]

In the context of the conversation between Delphic Oracle and Puppycow I'm not sure screening for a variation on a gene counts as "eliminating a gene".

I think it does.

I also think Delphic Oracle's warning touches upon what Joe said about the difference between saying it would be better if people didn't have a gene and saying it would be better if we didn't have people with the gene. Huntington's is a terrible disease, and I doubt anyone with it doesn't wish they didn't have it. But that's not at all the same as wishing they didn't exist. If you were to try to eliminate Huntington's, it matters a lot how you go about doing something like this.

In a fantasy world, you would have some CRISPR-like perfect gene editing tool with zero risk of introducing new errors, and you just change the problem gene. Replace any bad HTT genes with a good HTT gene. If such a perfect tool was available, there are very few people who would object to using it to eliminate the disease.

But we don't live in that fantasy world. The tools available are imperfect, and either not terribly effective or downright immoral. CRISPR isn't perfect, it comes with great risk of introducing new defects. Executing anyone with Huntington's is obviously way too extreme. Sterilizing people with Huntington's would be unethical (though I wouldn't put it past a place like China). People with Huntington's choosing not to have children is OK, but won't eliminate the disease. I'm very uncomfortable with selective abortion, I worry that that's a slippery slope. I'm OK with genetic screening of embryos used for in-vitro fertilization, but that's not going to be comprehensive enough to eliminate the disease.

 

[Darat]

Either that or "It's only Eugenics if it is bad" I guess.

That's kind of my take on it.

"Will we ever use Eugenics?"
"What do you mean will?"

I think when people hear the word eugenics they think of the "Eugenics Movement" of the early 20th century that led to the psuedo science of the Nazis who tried to rationalise their prejudices and irrational hatred of certain people and led to terrible atrocities.

But all the word means is selective breeding of humans to obtain a specific trait or traits.

People have been selectively breeding other humans for a long, long time.

Unless we are very careful and acknowledge that eugenics will happen if we don't stop it on moral grounds we will find it is too late.

If in say the society and culture that prevails in India you could offer a "cheap" gene edit of an embryo that will mean it will be lighter skinned than the average it would be hugely popular, because that is a trait that culture values. If you could offer a gene edit that would mean you kid wouldn't be homosexual I suspect that would be very popular in some societies.

And yes we are not quite at the stage where we can offer such edits but we really are not far from it.

Let's use the distaste people have for the word eugenics to label such technology as eugenics to try and prevent as I call it backdoor eugenics.

 

[Checkmite]

Here's a potential end goal that I think would be an improvement: my brother and his wife each have a single allele of a gene that leads to a genetic disease when present in two copies. Their third child died because she was born with two copies of this gene, which is invariably fatal in infancy. Imagine a eugenics program: everyone must get genetically tested at birth. Those with this gene are sterilized. I'd consider that pretty horrible: my brother has three other beautiful children and a great family life, and the world would be a much worse place had he had to suffer enforced sterilization. Moreover, most people with this gene don't marry others with the gene, so the risk per person is quite low.

The methodology of eugenics would be repugnant. But I would consider the goal to be a positive one. Luckily there are much better approaches to this goal. My brother and his wife started a charity raising funds toward research for treatment of the disease. Another avenue which seems to be happening: the last time I saw him he told me that there is a test that can be done on pregnant women, so selective abortion could be possible. That seems like a much better way to achieve the goal of eliminating this disease than a eugenics approach, but I'd consider the goal itself to be good.


You seem to be saying that positive goals don't count as eugenics. Is this a semantic issue?

I'm saying that positive goals have never been sought by eugenics in the real world. Anyone is free to make up a scenario like the above where a "eugenics" program with the singular goal of eradicating a specific medical condition can exist for instance; but this hypothetical scenario bears no relationship to the historical reality of eugenics and the aims of those who have used it and thus seems to serve little purpose, except perhaps as a waypoint in an attempt to argumentatively thumb-wrestle people into eventually conceding that a carefully-enough-crafted hypothetical "eugenics" program that is "not bad" can exist.

I am saying, that academic debate is pointless, and possibly even dangerous if it's used as a wedge. Eugenics has only ever been used for one thing - eliminating or reducing social "undesirables", as defined by ruling classes - publicly argued for under the euphemism of improving humanity. The "genetics" part has always been purely a pretext, usually pseudoscientific: according to our scientists it just so happens that pure-blooded "x"-people naturally are physiologically superior; bad things like criminality and laziness (which is what causes people to be poor of course) are hereditary, and can be reduced by not allowing people to spread the relevant "genes". Purely a convenient coincidence that those most likely to be criminals or to be poor, well they just so happen to be minorities and other socially-disadvantaged groups.

Eugenics as a concept can't be separated from that context. I think that when people argue that eugenics "isn't feasible", the veracity of the real historical goal by way of the real historical methods of eugenics is what they're referring to. They're not questioning whether the mechanics of heredity are true or not. I genuinely cannot understand where Dawkins got that impression, or why so many in this thread have latched onto it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's use the distaste people have for the word eugenics to label such technology as eugenics to try and prevent as I call it backdoor eugenics.

I think you're going to have a hard time simply outlawing such technology completely. If you could edit out the gene for Tay-Sachs disease, for example, I think you'd have a hard time getting people to oppose that on moral grounds. Traits like skin color are much more problematic because the preference carries a whole lot of cultural baggage detached from its biological merits, but drawing the line between the two cases won't be easy.

 

[d4m10n]

I think you're going to have a hard time simply outlawing such technology completely. If you could edit out the gene for Tay-Sachs disease, for example, I think you'd have a hard time getting people to oppose that on moral grounds.

If there was a way to safely edit out mutations to the HEXA^WP gene, I'd think (a) it's a good idea to do so & (b) doing so would be reasonably considered eugenics, at least with respect to any morally-neutral definition of the term.

What is the argument against these propositions?

 

[p0lka]

Okay we really, really, really need to be 100% clear here before someone speaks with any thing less then 100% unambiguous clarity and the pearls start being clutched so hard they turn into diamonds.

There is a difference between "It would be a better world if people were never born with Factor X" and "It would be a better world if people with Factor X were never born."

I agree, it's an important distinction.