Talk:Eugenics

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcloughe (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soukphalyisabelle (article contribs).

Removing the sidebar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think the discussion above about whether the article should include the "alternative medicine" sidebar has reached a conclusion, and that the conclusion is that the sidebar should be removed. The following outcomes favor its removal:

• A simple majority of editors favor its removal. Editors who have argued in favor of its removal include me, SMcCandlish, LarryBoy79, Nikolas Ojala, Richard Keatinge, and Maunus.
• In the discussion about the sidebar, most of the arguments in favor its removal haven't received a response.
• The majority of the sources listed above regard eugenics as biologically feasible, although many of them also say that it's a bad idea for ethical reasons. Contrary to MjolnirPants' argument that LarryBoy79 is confusing eugenics with selective breeding of animals, all of these sources are discussing these principles as they apply to humans.

It seems clear from the direction of the discussion on this page that the sidebar is going to be removed, but I think it's important to be as clear as possible about how consensus favors that outcome, to make sure it isn't added back. Deleet (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Keep discussion centralised per question or risk seeing it all shot down. The above mentioned sources are not supporting of your conclusions and have major issues as reliable sources (WP:RS). Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm just adding that Deleet's claim about me is obvious bullshit as evidenced by the very link he included: I never mentioned animals and anyone with an IQ over 60 can understand that in that context, I was referring to selective breeding of humans (which is not eugenics itself, but the method of pursuing eugenics). Keep pushing that White Supremacist POV, Deleet. I'm sure it's not going to get you indeffed anytime soon. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CRISPR

Some guy in China recently used CRISPR to modify CCR5 to attempt to confer HIV resistance. It's genetically modified twins. This should be included as an example of eugenics right? Alexandria Poklonskaya (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

No. It does not fall within the classical definition of what is meant by "eugenics". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Why?

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes 'well-born' from εὖ eu, 'good, well' and γένος genos, 'race, stock, kin')[2][3] is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population.[4][5]

You're obviously wrong. Oh I see so it's not classical eugenics because it's genomic. So cheap dishonest irrelevant sophistry then got it. Alexandria Poklonskaya (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It may not be classical eugenics, because new methods were used, but the definition of eugenics by Francis Galton did not include any definition of methods. "Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage." So, that recent Chinese example is obviously eugenics. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I have to concur with Poklonskaya and Ojala on the scope matter. However, WP can't call this particular case eugenics (or "something" eugenics or eugenic "something", like "neo-eugenics") without reliable sources calling it that. There are two ways to get at this: either find RS that specifically call this case [something-]eugenics, or find RS that classify and entire range of such cases [something-]eugenics and RS that classify this particular case in that range. Wikipedia is not in a position to just arbitrary apply a very contentious label to something on our own; that's original research. This is a debate that has been had about 1000 times with regard to labels like "neo-nazi", "racist", and everything else listed at MOS:WTW, so I am not presenting any kind of iffy or questionable argument; it's a cold, hard fact about our core content policies, especially WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, if CRISPR is used to create people with the purpose of improving either the individual's well-being, or the population's well-being, it is by definition eugenics. Here is a classic definition from Leonard Darwin, past president of the Eugenics Society of England: "Eugenics is the study of heredity as it may be applied to the betterment, mental and physical, of the human race." (Edwards, 2004).. Thus, although some may morally object to using CRISPR, as the previous commenters said, it is obviously a form of eugenics if the person who uses it aims to improve the welfare of the children that result.[[User:Drexelbiologist (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)DrexelBiologist]]

Split?

I have to wonder if it's time to WP:SPLIT this into Eugenics, mostly for "classical" eugenics – the pseudoscience stuff – and Neo-eugenics for modern things that RS classify under such a label, and which are not characterized by "good genes", "pure-race breeding" and other nonsense, but are actually medical research like gene therapy and CRISPR and so on, and why the term "neo-eugenics" is controversial, why the research itself is controversial, etc. Leave behind a WP:SUMMARY-style micro-section on neo-eugenics in Eugenics, with a {{Main}} at the top of it.

Then the navbox issue would also go away, with the box for alternative medicine and pseudo-medicine being applicable to the main article, but not to the neo-eugenics article (especially if that one has an explicitly-defined "no pseudoscience" scope, with all PS material being shunted into the main Eugenics article. This might also reduce the amount of trolling and PoV-warrior behavior. People who get pissy about CRISPR and whatever being labeled pseudo-science will not have anything to be pissy about, and people trying to make "it's real science!" arguments about eugenics proper will be easier to block as disruptive trolls, because there won't be any of the real science left in this article.

Maybe people will hate this idea, but I hate coming to this page any more because of the amount of disruptive crap going on. I'm also really concerned about the WP:COATRACK problem, the conflation of subject matter that is really only related at all by having a label like "neo-eugenics" applied to it by various parties, without sharing the underlying "theories" or methodology of what eugenics usually refers to. This also has a bias problem, in that the righteous loathing of the original concept is rubbing off on things that shouldn't be treated that way (not by an encyclopedia). E.g., just last year I was reading a paper on a proposed approach to permanently curing oculo-cutaneous albinism with gene editing; given that it affects something like 1 in 6000 to 1 in 10000 Africans, and most of them die young from melanoma (or worse – there's a large black market in at least three African countries for albino body parts to use in witchdoctor "medicine", which has lead to hundreds murders, even gangs of "albino hunters"), this kind of stuff is really significant.

While an article on the concept and term and socio-politics of "neo-eugenics" is no place to get into the details of such a medical project, if someone sees something like that, based on real science, get labeled "neo-eugenics" and they come to WP to find out more about what that means, they should not walk away with the idea that an albinism cure (or AIDS immunity, or whatever) is part of some Nazi-connected plot for building a master race and sterlizing the rest of the world. They should arrive at a page specifically about neo-eugenics and how it is different from (neo-, and all that) the original eugenics idea, why people working on real genetic science object to the label, what legitimate ethical concerns are being raised, what histrionic allegations have been debunked, etc. You know, an actual encyclopedia article, actually about that – not about something from a century to half-a-century ago that no one but nuts takes seriously. The present state of things is like having merged astrononmy into astrology because they're both about stars and have "astro-" in their names and 500 years ago there wasn't a clear dividing line. Shall we merge chemistry and materials science into alchemy? LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not untill there are separate bodies of literature on "neo-eugenics" and "classical eugenics". There is no such distinction in the literature that I know of - and the question of whether the science is sound is mostly irrelevant - the ethical dilemmas are the same regardless of whether the science works or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Agar wrote "Why We Should Defend Gene Editing as Eugenics," published December 2018. See [1] In his view, gene editing is technically eugenics and calling it eugenics may encourage the caution it requires. This 2013 article from Keele University states there are different definitions of eugenics, and different groups have different motivations for how they define it.[2] At this time, there is not an agreed upon distinction in the literature between old and new eugenics, which is why liberal eugenics, new eugenics, and techno-eugenics became redirects. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not very well-versed in this topic, but I do believe that eugenics generally has a very negative connotation, and is heavily linked to racism. Therefore, using the same word to describe scientific advances that have significantly less controversy surrounding them may not be the best course of action, and may take away from the validity of those scientific practices. Sraghuvir (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Sraghuvir

Short description and white supremist (sic)

The source says that it has origins in white supremacism but it may be an overgeneralization to just label it as such, especially in the short description. —PaleoNeonate – 15:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I concur. I understand what the IP was trying to get across, and tried to help, but it may need some tweaking. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've removed the short-description, and reordered the first para of the lede to demonstrate connections to white supremacism without being quite as absolute. However, if the original IP can find stronger academic sources to strengthen the language I would support that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Me too, —PaleoNeonate – 15:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Coming back to this: other than origins in Nazi policies (on the basis that some people were genetically superior, others inferior) and Social Darwinism (seeing eugenics as hastening natural selection), other early origins would be in the US with Henry Goddard (who believed that the Kallikak clan had degraded morally and socially after a "degenerate tavern girl" was impregnated) and supported the alcohol prohibition... There was degenerationism belief; then there were also the sterilizations in US mental institutions (and a similar movement in Europe based on Mendel's inheritence). There also was the early 1800s work of Galton also with a focus on race and Plato's idea of improving stock like for livestock/artificial selection... And today the term eugenics is sometimes even used in the context of sperm selection in banks by women for artificial fertilization; and early disease detection in embryos to allow parents to decide to keep it, or to attempt early medical interventions. So the short description should probably not mention white supremacism, which seems to only be one of the contexts, although very notable. Including it would be possible but in a much longer sentence for context... One very clear thing is the ethical debate which exists for all aforementioned topics, probably this could be included in the form of "controversial" or such. In at least one encyclopedia, half of the eugenics article is the "ethical considerations" section. —PaleoNeonate – 01:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Implementation Methods Section

Implementation methods sections needs further elaboration as the whole section is derived from one book by Lynn (2001). Samarthsbhatt (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)