Yes. Eugenics, the idea of improving the human species through controlled breeding, is widely considered one of the most harmful ideological movements of the modern era. It rests on flawed science, violates fundamental human rights, and has a documented history of catastrophic abuse. The concept was coined by Francis Galton in 1883, and within decades it had been used to justify forced sterilizations, immigration restrictions, and mass murder across multiple countries.
What Eugenics Actually Means
Eugenics comes in two forms. “Positive eugenics” encourages people deemed genetically superior to have more children. “Negative eugenics” discourages or prevents people deemed unfit from reproducing, through methods ranging from birth control to forced sterilization. In practice, negative eugenics dominated government programs throughout the 20th century, with devastating consequences for hundreds of thousands of people.
The Science Was Wrong
Eugenicists believed that complex human traits like intelligence, mental illness, and social behavior were inherited in simple, predictable patterns, the way eye color or blood type might be. This was a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics. Traits like intelligence are influenced by thousands of genes interacting with environment, nutrition, education, and countless other factors. There is no single “intelligence gene” to select for or breed out.
The National Human Genome Research Institute notes that eugenicists applied a “prejudiced and incorrect understanding of Mendelian genetics” to declare certain people “feebleminded” or antisocial. The label of “unfit” was applied based on poverty, disability, race, immigration status, or simply being institutionalized. These categories reflected social prejudice, not biology. Complex conditions were treated as solely genetic when they were not, and the criteria for who qualified as “unfit” shifted to match whatever group those in power wanted to target.
The Human Cost
The consequences of putting eugenic theory into law were enormous. In the United States alone, between 60,000 and 70,000 people were involuntarily sterilized between 1907 and 1983 under laws in 30 states. The 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell upheld Virginia’s forced sterilization law, and the effects were immediate: in 1925, there were just 322 sterilizations of institutionalized people worldwide. In 1928 and 1929, that number jumped to 2,362.
Sweden forcibly sterilized more than 62,000 people. Many other Western countries, including Britain, Canada, Norway, Australia, and Switzerland, adopted their own eugenics programs. The United States also passed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, explicitly motivated by eugenic thinking about which ethnic groups were “desirable.”
Nazi Germany took eugenics to its most extreme conclusion. Hundreds of thousands of people were forcibly sterilized through surgical procedures, radiation, and chemical injections, often with severe complications and high mortality rates. The regime’s Aktion T4 program went further, killing more than 70,000 psychiatric patients. Most victims had been hospitalized long-term and classified as schizophrenic or “feeble-minded.” The selection criteria were chilling in their simplicity: hereditary illness, incurability, and inability to work productively. Nearly a third of those killed were classified as unable to work, and 5% were actually described as working “productively” by the regime’s own records. The line between “unfit” and “fit” was always arbitrary.
Why It Violates Basic Ethics
The ethical problems with eugenics run deeper than its misuse by authoritarian governments. Bioethicists identify three core violations. First, eugenics requires coercion. The right to reproduce without interference from governments or institutions is one of the most fundamental freedoms recognized in international law and across ethical traditions. Any program that overrides that right is a violation of personal autonomy.
Second, there is no objective standard for what counts as a “perfect” or “optimal” human being. Who decides which traits are desirable? Historically, those decisions have always reflected the biases of the people making them, targeting racial minorities, disabled people, the poor, and immigrants.
Third, even voluntary eugenic selection raises serious concerns about inequality. If parents can choose genetic traits for their children, wealthier families gain biological advantages that poorer families cannot access. Genetic testing already costs up to several thousand dollars out of pocket, and research consistently shows that education level and household income predict who pursues genetic services. A world where genetic enhancement is available only to those who can afford it risks creating a biological class system layered on top of existing social inequality.
Modern Protections Against Eugenic Thinking
International law now explicitly guards against eugenics. UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, adopted unanimously in 1997, designates the human genome as the “heritage of humanity.” It states that interventions on the human genome should be permitted only for preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic reasons, and should not enact modifications passed to future generations. In 2015, UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee called for a moratorium on editing the human germline entirely.
In the United States, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 prohibits health insurers from using genetic information to determine eligibility, set premiums, or make coverage decisions. It also bars employers from using genetic data in hiring, firing, promotions, or pay. Insurers and employers cannot request or require genetic testing. These protections extend across private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal employee and veterans’ health plans.
The Debate Over “Liberal Eugenics”
Some ethicists, most notably Nicholas Agar, have argued for what they call “liberal eugenics,” a version that removes government control and instead lets individual parents make genetic choices for their children. The idea is that parental autonomy, not state power, should guide decisions about genetic traits.
This concept has not been widely accepted. Critics point out that even individual choices can collectively produce eugenic outcomes: a society where most parents screen out the same traits creates pressure toward genetic uniformity. Disability rights advocates argue that widespread prenatal screening for conditions like Down syndrome sends a message that lives with those conditions are not worth living. For members of the disability rights movement, living with a disabling trait does not prevent a worthwhile life, and public support for terminating pregnancies based on disability contradicts the movement’s core philosophy.
The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing reinforced the current consensus, issuing a statement that “heritable human genome editing remains unacceptable at this time.” The technology to edit genes in embryos (CRISPR) exists, but the ethical, social, and scientific barriers to using it on future generations remain firmly in place.
Why the Question Still Matters
Eugenics is not just a historical curiosity. The same impulse, improving the species by selecting who gets to pass on their genes, resurfaces whenever new genetic technologies emerge. The difference between treating a genetic disease and selecting for “superior” traits is a line that requires constant attention. What makes eugenics dangerous is not the desire to reduce suffering. It is the willingness to decide, on behalf of others, whose lives and whose genes are worth less. Every historical attempt to act on that judgment has produced cruelty, and the science behind it was never sound to begin with.