In Response to: Next-Gen Reproduction

Kudos to Robert Klitzman ’80 for exploring the complex ethical implications raised by “next-gen reproduction” technologies (Princetonians, Feb. 12), which promise to allow parents to prevent inherited diseases, or even select traits, for their children. However, the pull quote — “choosing socially desirable genes constitutes eugenics” — invokes the wrong supercharged bogeyman, which detracts from the discussion.

Assisted reproductive technologies are in no way of a kind with the genocides and forced sterilizations of the eugenics movement. Eugenics was about taking away personal choice — the ability to reproduce, or even to remain alive — whereas selecting genes for your offspring provides more. In treatment of personal agency, the two are polar opposites. (The baby, of course, never gets a say in any scenario.)

There are myriad moral quandaries in deciding whether and what genes parents should be able to choose, some of which are raised in the article. But the Holocaust is not an appropriate frame from which to view these technologies, and raising the specter of Nazis is not the most helpful way to analyze the issues.

Editor’s note: Author Robert Klitzman ’80 responded to this letter with an explanation of various manifestations of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Robert Cooper *12
San Diego, Calif.