Source: theage.com.au / Friday 13 October 2000 / VICTORIA BUTTON
The state of a nation's gene pool should be subject to government policies rather than left to the whim of individuals, a World Health Organisation ethicist told a symposium yesterday.
Professor Dan Wikler said such intervention had proved disastrous in Nazi Germany, but governments could not avoid taking a role in tackling the ethical dimensions of modern genetics.
Governments were widely accepted to have a legitimate role in health and would have to decide which genetic screening measures to fund - an ethical decision in itself, he said.
The completion of the human genome project would also make it possible to promote some genetic qualities such as intelligence and lower the incidence of others, he said.
"The state acts on behalf of future generations. It takes the long view (that) the lives of Australians four to five generations to come matter now," he said.
Governments should ensure future generations would get the best possible genetic deal, he said.
Professor Wikler, an American philosopher, academic and author, stressed he was speaking in his academic role and was not describing World Health Organisation policy.
The international eugenics movement of 1870 to 1950 was a "cautionary tale", most notably in the mass murders of Nazi Germany, but theorists differed on what lessons to learn, he said.
The arguments against any state involvement in modern ethical genetic issues also varied but none were convincing, he told the Third Menzies Scholar Symposium at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute.
He argued that:
The principle that it was "false success" to improve health generally by selective abortion of the unhealthy, rather than treating those born with health problems, was already contradicted by the community support for pre-natal screening for certain serious conditions.
Those favoring the "value of pluralism" believed noone in the community had the divine wisdom and objectivity to decide which were the most desirable genes. However, there were areas of broad agreement; few would argue bad health was better than good health or that it was better to be stupid than reasonably bright. To value genetic diversity was a policy in itself.
Any policy would need to respect individual choice, but that did not mean there should not be policy at all. Governments had a role in deciding what prenatal diagnostic tests to fund. They may need policy to prevent children of the wealthy getting privately funded genetic advantages over poorer peers or to stop genetic discrimination.
"The question of whether there should be a state genetic policy ... is not one that can be answered ... with a simple 'no'," he said.
"It may be conceivably required by justice itself."
