Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Eugenics and genetic testing.

N A Holtzman

    Science in Context
    |June 1, 2004
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Modern eugenics utilizes prenatal diagnosis for Mendelian disorders but faces uncertainty with complex diseases. This approach may foster intolerance, diverting focus from societal solutions to disease burden.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Asking fathers: a study of psychosocial adaptation.

    Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia·2004
    Same author

    Genetics and social class.

    Journal of epidemiology and community health·2002
    Same author

    Carrier screening for cystic fibrosis among Maryland obstetricians before and after the 1997 NIH Consensus Conference.

    Genetic testing·2001
    Same author

    Putting the search for genes in perspective.

    International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation·2001
    Same author

    Genetic services for common complex disorders: surveys of health maintenance organizations and academic genetic centers.

    Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics·2001
    Same author

    Primary care physicians' perceptions of barriers to genetic testing and their willingness to participate in research.

    American journal of medical genetics·2000
    Same journal

    The subject is the object: On the emergence of subjective science in thirteenth-century theology.

    Science in context·2026
    Same journal

    Albertus Magnus on Alchemy: Between <i>Ars</i> and <i>Scientia</i>.

    Science in context·2026
    Same journal

    Rubbing salted butter into the wound: Jungius and division.

    Science in context·2026
    Same journal

    Names, knowledge, and formats: Transformations of oceanic literacy.

    Science in context·2026
    Same journal

    Imaging a black hole shadow through the Event Horizon Telescope: A study in scientific collaboration and its epistemic constraints.

    Science in context·2026
    Same journal

    Taking nature: Collecting and the exercise of colonial power.

    Science in context·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Medical Genetics
    • Public Health Policy

    Background:

    • Healthcare cost reduction pressures drive eugenic approaches.
    • Prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion are primary modern eugenic methods, replacing historical sterilization.
    • Subtle societal pressures, rather than coercion, influence voluntary acceptance of these procedures.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To analyze the evolution of eugenic techniques from sterilization to prenatal diagnosis.
    • To examine the predictive accuracy and ethical implications of prenatal diagnosis for different genetic conditions.
    • To discuss the role of genetic determinism and potential societal intolerance in contemporary eugenics.

    Main Methods:

    • Review of historical and current eugenic practices.
    Keywords:
    Genetics and Reproduction

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of the predictive capabilities of prenatal diagnosis for Mendelian versus complex disorders.
  • Ethical considerations of voluntary screening and diagnostic procedures.

    • Main Results:

    • Prenatal diagnosis offers high accuracy for Mendelian disorders but significant uncertainty for complex, adult-onset conditions.
    • Voluntary acceptance of prenatal diagnosis is increasing, yet subtle pressures may compromise autonomy.
    • The rise of carrier screening and prenatal diagnosis may inadvertently create intolerance towards those who opt out.

    Conclusions:

    • While prenatal diagnosis improves prediction for some genetic disorders, its application to complex diseases remains uncertain.
    • Resurgent genetic determinism and intolerance pose ethical challenges, potentially overshadowing the need for social interventions.
    • Focusing on societal actions to reduce disease burden is crucial, rather than relying solely on eugenic strategies.