disorders through a single blood test. The procedure is relatively simple. Most often this involves
a sample of the mother’s blood and serum-alpha-fetoprotein testing to detect proteins that may
insinuate certain conditions such as spina-bifida (a condition when there is a lesion on the
incompletely closed spinal cord), neural-tube defects or Down syndrome. Biochemical errors
such as insufficient levels of hex-A enzyme that brings on Tay-Sachs disease, a fatal metabolic
disorder, can also be detected. For women over thirty-five, doctors suggest a more elaborate
procedure in which fetal cells are collected from the womb’s amniotic fluid (amniocentesis) or
placenta (chorionic villus sampling). However, these disorders represent a small fraction of the
total testable inherited disorders. Others include cystic fibrosis, susceptibility to some types of
breast cancer, fragile X syndrome (the second most common form of mental retardation),
Huntington’s disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and other types of brain stem
degeneration’s, spinal cord and peripheral nerves.iii Improvements are being made in both the
number of diseases we are able to detect, as well as the precision these tests carry. Some tests
have accuracy rates as high as 99%.iv
The solutions that result from the tests’ information can be quite beneficial. For example,
prenatal screening has helped reduce 95% of the number of Tay-Sachs births among the high-risk
group that is comprised of American Jews of East European descent. For congenital conditions
such as spina bifida, the hole in the spinal cord may be corrected through experimental surgery,
which takes place in the womb approximately seven months into pregnancy. Lastly, sex-selection
methods that are performed on in-vitro fertilization can reduce sex-linked disorders such as
2
Duchenne muscular dystrophy and hemophilia that only occur in males.v These optimistic facts
that are commonly seen in medical journals are rarely discussed to the layperson. Instead,
negative and fearful perspectives are portrayed.
Today, in Britain, embryos conceived by in-vitro fertilization are having their genes
analyzed and selectively implanted. Though this is presently being done for the purpose of
disease prevention, there is potential for much less selectivity. Another concern the media has
honed in on is eugenics (From the Greek word meaning well born). This field involves the study
and elimination of genetic disease with the aim of improving the human race. In her article
entitled, “Disability Rights and Selective Abortion,” Marsha Saxton gives a brief description of
how eugenics originated and has evolved over the years. She explains: “nineteenth century,
eugenicists believed that most traits, including such human “failings” as pauperism, alcoholism,
and thievery, as well as such desired traits as intelligence, musical ability, and “good character,”
were hereditary.”
Eugenics has always sought to improve society by controlling the reproduction of the
unfit. It encouraged white women to reproduce while discouraging the inferior groups such as
immigrants and people with disabilities. In the 1920’s, the American Birth Control League joined
itself with the American Eugenics Society. These two groups were responsible for the forced
sterilization of the mentally ill. By 1937, twenty-eight states had created eugenics sterilization
laws aimed at unfit women. Between the 1930’s and 1970’s over 200,000 women had been
sterilized.vi This mentality spread far beyond the borders of the United States. Between 1935 and
1976, at least 60,000 Swedes were sterilized because of their mixed parents and “gypsy
features.”vii Lastly, there is the most recognized incidence of eugenics in Nazi Germany. Hope for
extinction of such practices seems bleak. In 1995, China’s “Maternal and Infant Health Law,”
previously known as the “Eugenics Law,” made prenatal testing mandatory in order to alter or
abort the imperfect.viii Eugenics continues even today; women are able to select superior sperm
donors, and possibly select for the sex of their baby.
3
The potential division of the human race into those who have been genetically engineered
to be more “perfect”, and those who have been conceived naturally is another example of
eugenics which is a concern to many. If current practices continue and evolve, this separation
would likely happen for a number of reasons. First, only the rich could afford such screening.
Second, once such testing became common, those who had been genetically engineered would be
superior to those who had not. The two classes would be “the disease-free rich and the lower,
disease ridden class.”ix It is unethical that affluent families will be given the biological
advantages.
Another concern of the media is the threat to privacy. If such testing were to be done,
who would have the right to the information? The anxiety for most people is the issue of
insurance. When asked in a Time magazine poll if insurance companies should have access to
their genetic records or DNA without permission, only six percent answered that they would
approve. Already, medical and life insurance rates have increased astronomically due to
uncertainties about an individual’s risk of illness. Therefore, if prenatal genetic testing were to be
commonplace, each person’s risks would be determined immediately. Their insurance rates
would be set in stone long before they are even born. In fact, health insurance would lose its value
altogether, since people who knew they were free from defects would likely not need this service,
while those who knew they would need assistance would be left out on their own. Another
possible scenario is the inability for people with disorders to obtain jobs if their employer sees
their genetic records, even if their disorder is unnoticeable in any other way. In the same Time
survey, a mere five percent of respondents believed that employers should have access to their
employee’s genetic records.x In this scenario, everyone’s genetic makeup would become common
knowledge, thereby infringing on a person's right to privacy.
Perhaps the most common reservation for such research is the fact that it interferes with
the natural order of things. Human traits would no longer be left up to chance, but instead the
preferences of parents and geneticists. We are a society that often chooses to ignore fate and to
4
take matters into our own hands. It is interesting that “in the five million years since we hominids
separated from apes, our DNA has evolved less than two percent. But in the next century we will
be able to alter our DNA radically.”xi Perhaps, our DNA has evolved so little because we are not
ready for such drastic changes. By using such technology, the natural sequence of events is being
seriously disturbed, robbing some people of their individuality and others of life itself.
Society will never be in complete agreement over anything, especially genetic testing.
There will always be advocates of such testing like Brian Appleyard, one of the most famous
social critics. When talking about the Human Genome Project in Maryland he claims, “The
notion of not pursuing genetic research is unthinkable. It would be unethical to delay it.”xii He and
others believe that genetics gives us control over our own bodies, but this may prove to be false.
Although, medical journals and manuscripts often state the positives of such testing, the media
has in no way tried to conceal its biased thoughts. Reservations about genetic screening have been
common in every imaginable type of media. But these concerns have by no means gone
unanswered. The government has responded to the growing alarm by creating programs to learn
about these ethical and economical conflicts. One of these organizations is Wellcome Trust,
which plans to educate the public on such ethical matters and conduct research regarding the
possible social consequences of such advancements.xiii Hopefully, this technological transition
will be made easier because of all of the research that these committees will provide.
While it is encouraging that different perspectives about genetics are being voiced, they
need to be more balanced. Those involved in the exciting new discoveries must step back and
consider the implications of their work. The media needs to continue to inform people, just in a
far less biased manner. Showing the public only the possible cons will not only frighten them, but
also blind them to the wondrous ways that medicine is able to benefit our lives.
5
Works Cited:
i Frederic Golden, “Good Eggs, Bad Eggs,” Time, 11 January 1999, 56.
ii Abby Lippman,” Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening Constructing needs and reinforcing inequities,”
19.
iii Frederic Golden, “Good Eggs, Bad Eggs,” Time, 11 January 1999, 57.
iv Frederic Golden, “Good Eggs, Bad Eggs,” Time, 11 January 1999, 59.
v Frederic Golden, “Good Eggs, Bad Eggs,” Time, 11 January 1999, 59.
vi Marsha Saxton, “Disability Rights and Selective Abortion,” ed. Abortion Wars, (London: University of
California Press, 1998), 376.
vii Adrian Wooldridge, “Eugenics: It didn’t die with Hitler,” The Plain Dealer, 15 September 1997,
Editorials and Forum.
viii Oliver Burckhardt, “Book Review: Winners and losers in the great human race,” The Independent, 20
December 1998, Features.
ix Shelley Page, “Seeing the Light: Should society stop some children from being born?” The Ottawa
Citizen, 4 October 1998, The Citizen’s Weekly.
x Frederic Golden, “Good Eggs, Bad Eggs,” Time, 11 January 1999, 57.
xi Walter Isaacson, “The Biotech Century,” Time, 11 January 1999, 42.
xii Bill McSweeney, “Who Will Police the Cloners?” The Irish Times, 27 February 1999, Weekend.
xiii Tom Wilkie, “We Have Ways to Make Sure that Your Genes Become Your Destiny,” The Independent,
21 March 1998, Features.
6
Bibliography:
1. Isaacson, Walter, “The Biotech Century,” Time, 11 January 1999.
2. Golden, Frederic, “Good Eggs, Bad Eggs,” Time, 11 January 1999.
3. Wilkie, Tom, “We Have Ways to Make Sure that Your Genes Become Your Destiny,” The
Independent, 21 March 1998, Features.
4. McSweeney, Bill, “Who Will Police the Cloners?” The Irish Times, 27 February 1999,
Weekend.
5. Page, Shelley, “Seeing the Light: Should society stop some children from being born?” The
Ottawa Citizen, 4 October 1998, Books.
6. Burckhardt, Olivier, “Book Review: Winners and losers in the great human race,” The
Independent, 20 December 1998, Features.
7. Wooldridge, Adrian, “Eugenics: It didn’t die with Hitler,” The Plain Dealer, 15 September
1997, Editorials and Forum.
8. Lippman, Abby, “Prenatal Genetic Testing and Screening: Constructing needs and
reinforcing inequities.”
9. Saxton, Marsha. (1998). “Disability Rights and Selective Abortion.” In R. Solinger (ED.).
Abortion Wars (pp. 374-393). London: University of California Press.