Enhancing Ethics: Genetic Technology and
The Problem of Discrimination
Philosophy 525
Modern Moral Problems
Section 001
American University
Spring Semester 2013
Professor:
Office:
Office Phone:
E-Mail:
Office Hours:
Kimberly Leighton, Ph.D.
Battelle-Tomkins 121
202-885-2415
Leighton@american.edu
Tuesdays 5:30-6:30 and Fridays 2:30-3:30
This course meets Tuesdays, 8:10-10:40 in Ward 201
Course Description
The range and possibilities of new genetic technologies have raised questions regarding the ethical permissibility of both individual and social practices. What should individuals have a right to do with their own bodies regarding such things as genetic testing, the reproduction of children, and genetic medicine? What limits is the government authorized to place on access to and regulation of genetic science and its applications? One question that has raised much discussion in the field of bio-ethics has been the permissibility of genetic technologies for “enhancement” purposes, rather than “treatment” purposes. Going beyond the issue of ‘choice’ alone, genetic enhancement has prompted concerns about human nature itself. Specifically, the debate has centered on the question:
How might altering reproductive cells affect the status of the human nature? Some have answered that such alteration has harmful effects on the species as a whole, others that harm will come to those not thought to be “enhanceable,” i.e., the disabled, members of historically discriminated against groups, sexual minorities, etc. Against those who see enhancement as needing to be prohibited due to its actual or potential harms, some theorists have proposed that we have a moral duty to use genetic technology to limit the harm that being born (with limitations, with disabilities, with propensities for illness) can entail.
The goal of this course is two-pronged: Our first aim will be to familiarize ourselves with the landscape of current ethical debate on the “moral problem” of genetic enhancement. We will read many of the leading voices on this topic, putting them into dialogue with one another, pushing them in order to understand three things: what they think ‘enhancement’ is, what risk or danger they think ‘enhancement’ poses, and what ethical theory or perspective they use to defend their position.
Our second, more theoretical aim, is to advance the discussion by complicating the picture of
‘harm’ at stake, that is, to go beyond the simplistic individual choice v. social responsibility model.
To this end, we will work towards developing a genealogical perspective on the main worry about
“enhancement,” i.e., eugenics. Our readings will culminate in a critical analysis of the infamous
Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell (1927).

Leighton Phil 525 Spring 2013
Required Texts for the course (in alphabetical order):
Agar, Nicholas. Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement , Wiley-Blackwell; 1 edition
(December 7, 2004)
Alper, et. al., The Double-Edged Helix: Social Implications of Genetics in a Diverse Society , The
Johns Hopkins University Press (September 3, 2002)
Buchanan, et al, From Chance to Choice , Cambridge University Press (November 12, 2001)
Habermas, Jurgen. The Future of Human Nature , Polity (April 25, 2003)
Harris, John. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People ,
Princeton University Press; 1 edition (August 13, 2007)
Lombardo, Paul A, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v.
Bell
McWhorter, Ladelle. Racism and Sexual Oppression in Anglo-America: A Genealogy
Indiana University Press (March 5, 2009)
Mill, J.S
. Utilitarianism and On Liberty: Including 'Essay on Bentham' and Selections , Wiley-
Blackwell; 2 edition (March 14, 2003)
Moreno, Jonathan. The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America , Bellevue Literary Press,
(2011)
Savulescu, Julian (Editor), Nick Bostrom (Editor), Human Enhancement , Oxford University Press,
USA; 1 edition (March 25, 2009)
Requirements
Each student is required to do the following:
(1) Two critical responses readings (10% of final grade)—the topics of these writings are up to you. They can be in response to the student presentation or on a different aspect of the readings. I suggest that you start early in the semester as a way to generate ideas for your research paper. They are due in class as hard copy. They must be done by mid-semester.
(2) One presentation to the class (10% of final grade)—a two page outline (or full copy of your remarks) will be due Monday by 9am. You will post this on blackboard for all of your colleagues to read. Usually there should be 2 people presenting per class and there can be no more than 3. Your presentation should be no more than 10 minutes and it should aim to stimulate discussion by drawing out a specific problem you find in the text (or between the text and another text).
(3) A mid-semester paper (20%) 8-10 pages. You will set up a critical dialogue between two of the authors we have read. Due March 8
(4) A project proposal (10% of final grade) due in class on April 2—bring in **6 copies .
(5) Final Project paper (50% of final grade) due as hard copy on last day of class, April 23 .
You will also be expected to come to class prepared to participate in rigorous (though friendly and humorous) discussion. To that end, I will take into account your participation when calculating your final grade.
2

Leighton Phil 525 Spring 2013
Reading Schedule:
Tuesday, January 15—Intro to Course
(1) Michael Fuchs, “The Debate About Genetic Enhancement of Cognitive Functions”
(2) Nick Bostrom, “Humanity’s Biggest Problems Aren’t What You Think They Are” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd9cf_vLviI
(3) Paul Roote Wolpe, “It’s Time to Question Bio-engineering” http://emoryethics.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-time-to-question-bio-engineering.html
Tuesday, January 22—Liberty and Human Enhancement
(1) JS Mill, “On Liberty,” pp 88-180 in Utilitarianism and On Liberty
(2) , Introduction, pp 1-24
(3) , Appendix I, pp 347-370
(4) Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, “Overview of Biopolitics” http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/biopolitics
(5) Eric Juengst, “Can Enhancement be Distinguished from Prevention in Genetic
Medicine?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22(2) 1997, pp 125-142 on BB
Tuesday, January 29—— Enhancing Justice I.
(1) From Chance to Choice , pp 1-155
Tuesday, February 5—The politics of Science, the science of Politics
(1) The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America , Jonathan Moreno**Guest
Visitor http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15265161.2012.657053
Tuesday, February 12—Enhancing Justice II.
(1) From Chance to Choice , pp 156-345
Tuesday, February 19
Problem of Discrimination I.
(1) The Double-edged Helix
(a) Introduction, pp 1-16
(b) Chapter 3, “Genetics and Behavior in the News,” Peter Conrad, pp 58-79
(c) Chapter 5, “Invisible Women: Gender, Genetics, and Reproduction,” Susan
Markens, pp 102-122
(d) Chapter 6, “Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion: A Challenge to Practice and Policy,” Adrienne Asch, pp 123-150
(2) S.D. Edwards, “Disability, identity and the ‘‘expressivist objection’’ on BB
Tuesday, February 26— Perspectives (of ‘Others’) on ‘Enhancement’ and the
Problem of Discrimination II.
(1) (1) The Double-edged Helix
(a) Chapter 7, “African American Perspectives on Genetic Testing,” Diane Beeson and Troy Duster, pp 151-174
3

Leighton Phil 525 Spring 2013
(b) Chapter 8, “Genetics, Race, and Ethnicity: Searching for Differences,” Joseph
Alper and Jon Beckwith, pp 175-196
(c) Chapter 9, “The Origins of Homosexuality: No Genetic Link to Change,” Byne,
Schuklenk, and Lasco, pp 197-214
(d) Chapter 10, “Diversity and Complexity in Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transexual
Responses to the ‘Gay Gene’ Debates,” Lostroh and Udis-Kessler, pp 215-226
(2) Human Enhancement
(a) Chapter 3, pp 59-70, “Should We Improve Human Nature? An Interrogation from an Asian Perspective,” Ryuchi Ida
Tuesday, March 5—The Issue of Human Nature I.
(1) Human Enhancement
(a) Chapter 1, “Can Anyone Really Be Talking About Ethically Modifying Human
Nature?” Norman Daniels, pp 25-42
(b) Chapter 2, “What’s Taxonomy Got to Do with It? ‘Species Integrity’, Human
Rights, and Science Policy, pp 43-58
(c) Chapter 5, “ What Is and Is Not Wrong With Enhancement?” Frances Kamm, pp
91-130
(d) Chapter 7, “Playing God,” C. A. J. Cody, pp 155-180
(e) Chapter 10, “The Human Prejudice and the Moral Status of Enhanced Human
Beings: What Do We Owe to the Gods?” Julian Savulescu, pp 211-250
Tuesday, March 12—NO CLASS, Spring Break
Tuesday, March 19—The Issue of Human Nature II.
(1) Jurgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature
Tuesday, March, 26—Parental Rights (not Choice)
(1) Nicholas Agar, Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement
Tuesday, April 2— The Moral Demand to Enhance?
(1) John Harris, Enhancing Evolution
Tuesday, April 9—Genealogies of Discrimination I.
(1) Ladelle McWhorter, Racism and Sexual Oppression in Anglo-America
Chapters 1-4, pp 1-195
Tuesday, April 16—Genealogies of Discrimination II.
(1) Ladelle McWhorter, Racism and Sexual Oppression in Anglo-America
Chapters 5-7, pp 196-331
Tuesday, April 23—What’s the Problem with (and Politics of) Eugenics?
(1) Paul Lombardo, Three Generations No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme
Court and Buck v. Bell
(2) Readings on the Social Construction of Disability TBA
4