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).

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

I agree with the idea of splitting the articles into classical and new eugenics. This has already been done. However, as someone who wrote a dissertation on the history of eugenics, I have a few thoughts. First, there is some truth to the idea that many of the early 20th century eugenicists were racist. No doubt about it. But not all of them were, and many -- like playwright G.B. Shaw -- were political progressives who thought the only way for socialism to succeed is to improve the average abilities or moral character of any given population. See the preface to Man and Superman as an example of this way of thinking. Second, apart from the issue of race, most modern and classical eugenicists tended to care about the welfare of future people. They mainly differed in how much weight to give to individual liberty and collective interests. So, it would be wrong to equate eugenics with racism and white supremacy for these reasons and because eugenics has been practiced in countries like China and Japan which, last time I checked, were not white countries. user: Drexelbiologist (User talk:Drexelbiologist) 10:00am, 13 January 2020 Drexelbiologist (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Drexelbiologist

Racism is not restricted to just white folks, so... that's a non-starter. Further, you would need to provide reliable sources for changes you want to make. Finally, your signature is broken. Might want to look at your settings, or what command you're using to sign. (Should just be four ~ signs at the end of your message.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that other groups can be racist. That's precisely my point. Contrary to what the current entry says in the beginning, eugenics cannot be intrinsically associated with white supremacy. It also isn't necessarily associated with racism, but rather sometimes is and sometimes isn't (since some of its early advocates were racist, and some were not). I appreciate your point. I just wanted to argue against who claim there's a necessary connection between eugenics and white supremacy. Drexelbiologist (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Drexelbiologist

You've got it backwards. Just because other groups can use/endorse eugenics, it does not follow that we have to eliminate the mention of ties between eugenics & white supremacy. Eugenics was not only historically tied to white supremacy, but WS still pushes for eugenics in that regard, so removing that connection from the article would be irresponsible. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

First section of entry is not neutral

While I share the editors' views that racism is bad, and that there are biological worries about certain forms of eugenics, the current version of the first section of the article unfairly portrays eugenics as intrinsically associated with "white supremacy," and seems to indicate that it couldn't work because of "inbreeding depression" and other scientific objections. But this is not the consensus view. Many bioethicists and geneticists have argued that it is perfectly possible to have voluntary eugenics that avoids racism (e.g. Hermann Mueller) and that increases genetic diversity (e.g. Allen Buchanan). So, I think two changes should be made to the first part of the article: 1) Eugenics should not be associated, by definition, with racism and white supremacy. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. 2) Replies should be included to worries over loss of genetic diversity, etc. I tried to do this by citing articles from journals like Bioethics and The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, in which professional bioethicists defend the view that (a) gene editing can be done in a way that preserves genetic diversity, and (b) gene editing can be done in a way that improves on evolution rather than "interferes" with it in a way that's necessarily bad (the current version of the article implies that disrupting evolution is bad). As I mentioned before my changes were "undone," mainstream bioethicists who have made arguments like those listed above include Dan Brock (Harvard), Allen Buchanan (Duke), and Julian Savulescu (Oxford). Drexelbiologist (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Drexelbiologist

Stop making new sections to continue the same debates, please. And fix your signature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

DrexelBiologist is right: the first section masks the ambiguity of the word and makes it looks as if no counter-arguments exist on issues like genetic diversity. But they do, and DB cites them. They should be reinstated. Neutrality is crucial, especially on a charged topic like this. Brian Barry Smith (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)