Eugenics the Past,Present and Future

                Eugenics the Past,Present and Future

                                                   Dr KS Dhillon

Definition

The Oxford dictionary defines eugenics as ‘the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics’ [1]. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines eugenics as ‘a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed’ [2]. Dictionary.com gives a more comprehensive definition of eugenics and describes it as ‘the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics) [3].

The British Eugenics movement

The word eugenics is derived from Greek roots for ‘eu- good, well’ and ‘gen- genesis, creation’. Although some form of eugenics was practiced by Hindus 7,000 years ago, it was Francis Galton who first coined the term eugenics in 1800’s and he was the pioneer who developed the subject of eugenics. He defined eugenics as "the science of improving the inherited stock, not only by judicious matings, but by all other influences ..." [4].
Modern science has now ’expanded the definition of eugenics and expressed it as "the use of science applied to the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the human genome" [5]; whereby population numbers can be regulated and genome quality can be improved ‘by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells [6].
Galton (1822-1911) was an English intellectual who was a half cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton’s work spanned various specialities including statistics, psychology, meteorology as well as genetics. His first foray into eugenics was when he studied the pedigrees of England’s upper class families from biographical information obtained from obituaries and other sources and concluded that ‘superior intelligence and abilities were inherited with an efficiency of 20%’ [7]. In his book Hereditary Genius (1869) he advocated a selective breeding program for humans. He believed that as horses and dogs can be bred for superior ability in running or other abilities, similarly humans can be bred to produce highly-gifted individuals by judicious marriages over several generations.
In 1904, Galton, established a research fellowship in eugenics at University College London (UCL), and the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was installed in Gower Street London.The ERO was later renamed as the Galton Laboratory of National Eugenics. In 1907 a group of Galton followers founded the Eugenics Education Society (EES) [8].
The objectives of the society were;

• ‘Persistently to set forth the National Importance of Eugenics in order to modify public opinion, and create a sense of responsibility in the respect of bringing all matters pertaining to human parenthood under the domination of Eugenic Ideals’.
• ‘To spread a knowledge of the Laws of heredity so far as they are surely known, and so far as that knowledge might affect the improvement of the race’.
• ‘To further Eugenic Teaching, at home, in the schools, and elsewhere’[9].

Eugenics movement in the United States

Galton’s thoughts on eugenics gained traction both in England and in United States. Charles Davenport (1866-1944), a prominent american biologist, took the lead in United States to further advance the study of eugenics. He established the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) on Long Island, New York, USA and their goal was “to improve the natural, physical, mental, and temperamental qualities of the human family” [7]. The ERO collected data depicting the inheritance of physical, mental, and moral traits in family pedigrees. Their main interest was in negative and undesirable traits such as criminality, dwarfism, pauperism, promiscuity and mental disability. Their studies unveiled valuable information about the inheritance of conditions such as albinism and neurofibromatosis [7].
The genetic knowledge available in the 1900’s was sufficient to encourage the use of genetics for altering the human gene pool. The scientific basis of these attempts to alter the genetic pool was the Mendelian demonstration of dominant and recessive inheritance in peas which allowed for ‘prediction of phenotypes among offspring of parents with known genotypes’ [7]. In fact  animal breeders have been selectively breeding  animals to improve their livestock for many centuries.
Eugenics enthusiasts thought that if it was possible in plants and animals, why was it not possible to apply the same principles to improve human population? They thought that by controlling human mating they could eliminate mental illness, mental retardation as well as  disabling physical ailments.
The elimination of undesirable genes from the population, however, involved preventing individuals with such genes from having children and this would involve involuntary sterilization or institutionalization
Soon eugenics became a public health issue which got not only scientist but also doctors and lawmakers involved [7]. The eugenics movement in the United States peaked in the 1920s and 1930s. It saw the founding of the American Eugenics Society and other local societies and groups. Fairs, exhibitions, books and movies promoted eugenics [7].
In 1917, even a film, The Black Stork, was released which depicted a fictional account of a true story of eugenic infanticide. It was based on Dr Haiselden real life experience where he allowed an infant (John Bollinger) suffering from syphilis to die after he convinced the parents that the child would grow up to be a miserable outcast and that death was the best option for the child and for society.
Dr Haiselden was charged for allowing Bollinger to die but the jury acquitted him and the Illinois State Board of Health also dropped action to revoke his medical licence. The Chicago Medical Society however did terminate his membership because of The Black Stork and the publicity he sought out after the infanticide [10].
Dr. Haiselden was an ardent, outspoken supporter of the eugenics and after the Bollinger infanticide he became famous despite the extensive controversy it created. From then on he took eugenics to the national stage.
Although the eugenics enthusiasts in England led by Galton promoted selective breeding for positive traits, the American eugenics movement promoted elimination of negative traits. Unfortunately these negative traits were found among the uneducated, poor, minority population. To prevent such people from propagating eugenic enthusiasts pushed for legislations for their forced sterilization. This push resulted in legislation in Indiana in 1907, followed by California and 28 other states by 1931 [11]. These laws resulted in forced sterilization of over 64,000 people in the United States [11].
Sterilization efforts initially started with sterilization of the disabled but eventually included people who were simply poor. These sterilization programs though flawed in science and principle found support in the Supreme Court of United States in Buck v. Bell (1927).
In Buck vs. Bell decision of May 2, 1927, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute that provided for the eugenic sterilization for people considered genetically unfit.
The Virginia state had sought to sterilize Carrie Buck for promiscuity because she had given birth to a child (Vivian) out of wedlock. In ruling against Carrie Buck, Supreme Court Justice Wendell Holmes opined, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind....Three generations of imbeciles is enough” [12].
This supreme court decision legitimized the sterilization laws in the USA with California having one of the most robust program. Even Nazi Germany under Hitler turned to California for advice in perfecting their own efforts for the prevention of reproduction of the “unfit”[12].
The sterilization program got a boost from the Supreme Court decision although the decision in Buck vs. Bell according to some was flawed in many ways. According to critics, feeblemindedness is a vague term with no medical or clinical meaning and it was impossible in 1927 with the information available to judge if Carrie was feebleminded. Carrie was apparently not promiscuous and Vivian was conceived as result of rape by by the nephew of her foster parents. Neither was Vivian an an imbecile. Vivian's first grade report card showed excellent grades and she made the honor roll in 1931. Unfortunately she died a year later  from measles complications [13].
In 1942 the Supreme Court struck down a law which allowed involuntary sterilization of criminals. It however did not reverse the general concept of eugenic sterilization. After many years in 2001, realization dawned and the Virginia General Assembly did acknowledged that the sterilization law was based on faulty science. The General Assembly expressed its "profound regret over the Commonwealth's role in the eugenics movement in this country and over the damage done in the name of eugenics” [13].

Problems with Eugenic Studies

It was believed that one of the problems with the eugenics movement was that most of the traits studied by the eugenicists had little or no scientific or genetic basis. The characteristics commonly studied in those days for elimination from the human population were traits such as "criminality," epilepsy, bipolar disorder, alcoholism, and "feeblemindedness,"[7] which were believed to be more related to environmental factors (such as poor housing, poor nutrition, and inadequate education) [7].
However recent studies do show that many of these disorders have familial or genetic links which suggests that eugenicists those days were quite right despite the lack of scientific evidence.
In severe forms of mental retardation genetics play a very important role but in mild forms of mental retardation, genetics does sometimes play a role with cultural factors playing a significant role. Two genetic disorders with mental retardation have been identified namely Rett syndrome and the Williams syndrome [14].
Studies have also found ‘compelling evidence that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder partially share common genetic etiology’[15]. Even for epilepsy genetic factors responsible for the disease have been identified [16].
There is now evidence that ‘personality disorders are moderately to strongly heritable (heritability estimates between 30% and 80%) and that environmental factors increase the risk of personality disorder’[17].
Though there has been some who believe that criminality is a hereditary trait, others would call the idea of ‘criminal gene' as nonsense, but now there is ‘growing evidence that some psychopathic behaviour might indeed be grounded in genes’ [18].
There is some evidence, though not robust, that the ADH1B and ALDH2 genes are strongly associated with risk for alcoholism [19].
Charles Davenport’s Eugenics Record Office (ERO), over a span of 29 years, in the early 1900’s collected ‘hundreds of thousands of pedigrees that documented the heritability of ….. undesirable traits’[7]. Information was obtained from interview with families and from records kept by prisons and psychiatric hospitals [7]. The data thus obtained was considered to be unscientific and bad science, yet popular support continued to grow. The believe that the data obtained was flawed lead to discreditation of the eugenics movement by the 1930s. However, we now know that much of what was believed in those days, based on so called flawed, unscientific data, was true. There is now more scientific proof that many of those undesirable traits have a genetic basis.

Eugenic movement in Germany

In 1932 the Weimar government (Germany) drafted a plan for sterilizations of individuals with "hereditary illnesses" and this plan was inspired by eugenic movement in the USA. After the First World War the cost of maintaining many people who were living in institutions was becoming a burden on the government and it was felt that sterilizing them would prevent them from having children and be cost effective. Under this program involuntary sterilization of all persons who suffered from diseases which were considered as hereditary, such as mental illness (schizophrenia and manic depression), retardation (“congenital feeble-mindedness”), physical deformity, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and severe alcoholism, was carried out. About 400,000 Germans were sterilized under this law [20].
There were concerns about hereditarily healthy families adopting a policy of having only one or two children, while those with undesirable hereditary conditions were  reproducing unrestrainedly and their sick and asocial offspring were becoming a burden to the community. The main targets of the sterilization campaigns were patients in mental hospitals and other institutions. The common age group was between the ages of twenty and forty, and the numbers of males and females was about equal. However, majority of them were “Aryan” Germans.
In Germany and annexed territories Hereditary Health Courts were set up, each of which consisted of two physicians and one district judge. Doctors had an obligation to report all hereditary cases to these courts. Although  there were Appeals Courts, decisions were rarely reversed. Occasionally exemptions were provided to artists or other talented persons who had mental illnesses. In 1935 the “Sterilization Law” was followed by the Marriage Law which required proof that a marriage would not result in an offspring afflicted with a disabling hereditary disease.
The German Protestant Churches cooperated with the sterilization policy but the Roman Catholic Church, for doctrinal reasons, was opposed the sterilization program. Films and school education systems were drummed up to support of the policy [20].
In 1939, Hitler introduced the Aktion T-4 program, which allowed selected doctors and officials to carry out mercy killing-euthanasia-of those who the state deemed unworthy of living. This mercy killing was carried out by 50 volunteer physicians. Doctors at hospitals and psychiatric institutions throughout Germany identified and recommended candidates for such killings [21].
At initiation of the T-4 program, the doctors murdered 5000 congenitally deformed children with lethal injections and some were starved to death.
Later the project included killing of adults. The families were given death certificates with falsified cause of death [21].
Due to pressure from church groups and the public the T-4 program was ultimately halted by Hitler but by then in August 1941 about 70,000 people had been killed under the T-4 project. Although the T-4 project was halted, the killing did not stop. Physicians and nurses continued selective killing and covered up their actions [20]. The killing continued with the extermination in gas chambers of 6 million jews and ‘millions of political prisoners, Gypsies, the handicapped, those too ill to work, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Afro-Europeans, and Soviet and Polish prisoners-of-war’ [21].
Several factors influenced the eugenics-based horrors of the Holocaust. These included social, political, military and economic factors. What really made the Holocaust possible was the ‘Nazis' total disregard for the rights and dignity of human beings’ [21].

Eugenics and Religion

Christianity and eugenics

“We all desire to improve the stocks of which our race consists. […] We know that many children born had better not exist, and I have been converted to a belief in euthanasia and to acceptance of the principle of sterilisation of those carrying unwholesome genes”. E.W. Barnes, Bishop of Birmingham [22].

Eugenics was born as a result of conflict between ‘scientific naturalism and its theological opponents’. Galton opposed dogmas of religion and he tried to ‘replace the Christian faith by a system of belief based on natural science’ [23]. Galton tried to overcome the conflict between eugenics and organized religion by introducing eugenics into the national conscience like a new religion. Eugenicist tried to empower individuals and society with promises of biological improvement of mankind and offered an alternate form of spirituality which did not rely on an almighty God. Eugenics was considered by some to be a ‘secular religion’ [23].
In the early 20th century when British Eugenics Society was in its infancy the Protestant clergy was well represented in the society but the Catholic clergy was conspicuously absent. Some of the well known protestant clergymen were Rev E. W. Barnes, William Inge (1860–1954), Charles D’Arcy and S.T. Percival all of whom advocated eugenics. In fact Inge, who was the then Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral, like Barnes believed that ‘there is nothing inconsistent with Christianity in imposing as well as enduring personal sacrifice where the highest welfare of the community is at stake’ [24]. Inge was a prolific author and he had a huge audience. He later gained an international reputation for being  a Christian proponent of eugenics.
Inge made a strong stand for negative eugenics which advocated prevention of multiplication of undesirable types by sterilization and birth control. He believed that negative eugenics was more important than positive eugenics i.e the encouragement of the better stocks to reproduce
their kind [24].
One of the most well know Anglican clergyman who was a radical eugenicist was Rev E.W. Barnes, the Bishop of Birmingham from 1924-1953. He along with other modernist tried hard to reconcile Anglicanism with the doctrine of evolution. Barnes spent his professional life as a mathematician and scientist at Cambridge from 1898–1919 and he was the Bishop of Birmingham from 1923–1953. From 1945 to 1953, he was a fervent supporter of negative eugenics and at the same time he was ‘the Church of England’s foremost champion of religious heterodoxy’ [25]. He fought hard to make beliefs of the Christian religion to ‘come to terms with science and scholarship’[25]. He argued that the viewpoint of eugenics and Anglicanism were complementary. He saw eugenics as a ‘means to fulfill God’s divine, evolutionary plan for humanity, drawing both on theories of modern science – particularly evolutionary biology – and Christianity to develop his own distinct ideology’ [25]. He supported pacifism, evolutionism, racism, sterilization, birth control and divorce, all viewpoints which are conventionally not supported by the Anglican Church.
Although the eugenics movement in Britain was greatly discredited and marginalized after the Second World War due to the true horrors of the ‘Nazi Rassenhygiene’,  Barnes began directly advocating the introduction of eugenic measures only after the Second World War although he had been involved with the eugenics movement for 30 years [25].
The Catholic clergy was conspicuously absent in the eugenic movement. In 1958, the Pope Pius XII (1876–1958) criticized the eugenic viewpoints. He called sterilization ‘a grave violation of moral law’. He said that sterilization cannot be justified even for preventing the transmission of heredity diseases. According to the Pope no human being had the right  under any pretext to permit sterilization because it was a violation of moral law and was against God’s divine plan [25].

Islam and eugenics

There is apparently no conflict between science and religion in Islamic faith [26]. However some genetic disorders occur frequently in Islamic/Arab countries in all socioeconomic groups of families[27]. Some of these disorders  which occur quite frequently include haemoglobinopathies, thalassaemias, enzymopathies, some inborn errors of metabolism, neurological disorders, muscular disorders and congenital defects.
The occurrence of these disorders is linked to consanguinity and recessive genetic disorders. Consanguinity is common in Islamic nations and first cousin marriages are common and second cousin marriage and other forms of inbreeding also occurs. Marriages among individuals with the same tribe are common. This inbreeding is responsible for the frequent occurrence of rare hereditary disorders [27]. Though most attribute consanguinity among muslims to cultural practices, it is, however, more likely due to religious islamic believes, since, in populations where muslims and hindus have lived in the same community for generations, consanguinity is never practised and is forbidden among those of other faiths.
Eugenics for the purpose of elimination of negative traits and hereditary diseases has not been practised among people of the muslim faith even though it has been known for hundreds of years that consanguinity is responsible for the transmission of many harmful hereditary disorders.
Abortions, all forms of artificial insemination by a donor or egg donation,  euthanasia and female sterilization are generally not allowed in Islam. Abortion and sterilization may be allowed under certain strict circumstance but not for the purposes of eugenics. Islam forbids celibacy, monasticism and castration. Muslims are prohibited from having abortions, as well as, practising infanticide and sterilization [28].

Eugenics in Hinduism

There are various estimates of  how long the Vedas and Hinduism may be have existed. Some estimate that the Vedas and Hinduism may have exited at least since 5000 BC (7000 years ago). Eugenics apparently is the basis of the  “Varna System”. Varna is a Sanskrit word which means type, order, colour or class. Varna refers to social classes in Brahmanical books which classified the society into four varnas:

• Brahmins: priests, scholars and teachers.
• Kshatriyas: rulers, warriors and administrators.
• Vaishyas: agriculturalists and merchants.
• Shudras: laborers and service providers.

Those who belong to one of the four varnas or classes are called savarna and they are known as forward castes. The Dalits and scheduled tribes who do not belong to any varna, are called avarna.
There are numerous verses in Vedas and ManuSmriti and even in the Bhagavad Gita which propagate eugenics. One of them from Manusmriti goes as follows,
“Only a servant woman can be the wife of the servant, twice-born men who are infatuated as to marry women of low caste quickly reduce their families, including descendants to the status of servants”
It can be inferred from this verse that Eugenics was/is a central facet of Hinduism. In the caste system eugenics was practiced which prevented the finer human strains from dilution and disappearance through indiscriminate mix marriages. Historically in India the best form of marriage was known as brahmanya marriage whose sole objective was the improvement of the progeny. The choice of mate rested with, not the parties to marriage, but with the elders and guardians. Marriages were a sacred duty where considerations of self and passion had no role. Marriages outside the the caste and race were undesirable and hence prohibited. Some of the marriages were arranged in infancy so that the progeny could be improved. Irrespective of the happiness or otherwise of these marriages, eugenically such marriages had merit.  [29].

Modern Eugenics

Spectacular breakthroughs in physics and chemistry occurred in the 20th century but the 21st century belongs the biological sciences where scientists are now able to decipher the genetic code of life. The days of ‘fusing, melting, soldering and forging’ have now been replaced by ‘splicing,
recombining, inserting, and stitching living material’ [30].
In the last couple of decades extensive scientific developments have taken place fields of DNA technology and genetic engineering. We have come a long way since the birth of the world’s first “test tube” baby in 1978.The technology involved in, in-vitro fertilization is now being used all over the world. Since in, in-vitro fertilization, the embryo is in an external  environment (laboratory), it makes it possible to do genetic manipulation to “correct” genetic disorders. Proponents of gene manipulation seek to eradicate defective genes from the human population in future [31]. This can rightly be described as resurrection of eugenics.
The three dimensional structure of the DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick in 1953. This made it possible to study the mechanism of how DNA is able to replicate itself during the division of cell. About 20 years later restriction enzymes were discovered which can chemically cut DNA molecules at specific places. This opened up new fields of recombinant DNA technology, gene “cloning,” and genetic engineering [32]. The use of such enzymes make it possible to isolate particular genes from human chromosomes which allows for gene cloning [31].
The CRISPR-Cas9 (gene-editing technique discovered by scientists at MIT) technology is now available which allows scientists to design proteins that unzip and replace chunks of DNA which makes  gene editing quick and cheap.
The ability to select good genes, eliminate bad genes, and increasing the reproduction of fit individuals will pay the way for positive eugenics. We can now for the first time in history, engineer life itself, reprogram the genetic codes of living entities to suit our own needs for the propagation of positive eugenics. It is likely that genetic engineering could alter genes in fetuses to correct deadly diseases and disorders, as well as have some effect on modification of mood, behavior, intelligence and physical traits.
We used to believe that our fate was determined by God or as some would say by our stars but now we know that it (fate) is in our genes. Knowing that our fate is in the genes would make it possible to manipulate our fate. Many are now questioning whether we should be playing God and should we be engineering future generations, because such pursuit would have ethical implications. There are some who fear that genetic engineering of humans may reduce human genetic diversity which may in turn create a ‘biological monoculture’ which can increase our susceptibility to diseases and even lead to the extinction of our species [33].
Despite worldwide resistance to experimentation of gene editing in human embryos, a team at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China, led by  Junjiu Huang confirmed they had engineered human embryos to modify the gene responsible for the fatal blood disorder thalassaemia [34] . Though the team, attempted to head off fears of eugenics by claiming the embryos were ‘non-viable’ and could never had become babies, the prestigious science journals Nature and Science refused to publish the study on ethical grounds. The research was then published in journal Protein and Cell. The critics in the west labeled China as ‘Wild West’ of genetic research and claimed that this was the step towards designer children and called for a worldwide ban on the practice [35].

Conclusion

Historically there has been selective breeding to improve the qualities of the human species or a human population by the Hindus as far back as 7,000 years ago. However it was Francis Galton who first coined the term eugenics in 1800’s and he was the pioneer who developed the subject of eugenics. He relentlessly pursued the science of improving the inherited stock, not only by judicious matings, but by all other influences. From London the study and practice of eugenics spread to USA. Although the British practiced positive eugenics, the American eugenics movement promoted elimination of negative traits. This led to a push for legislation which resulted in mass sterilization of the uneducated, poor and minority population.
Despite the lack of scientific proof that many of those undesirable traits, which were the target of eugenics, have a genetic basis, eugenics spread to Nazi Germany. In Germany it led to the horrors of the ‘Nazi Rassenhygiene’,which saw the elimination of a huge section of society in and around Germany.
Beside the Anglican church which was actively involved in eugenics in Britain, most other religious bodies were against the practice of eugenics.
Over the last few decades extensive scientific developments have taken place in the fields of DNA technology and genetic engineering. We will certainly be witnessing a resurgence of interest in modern eugenics in the future. What the future hold for us is uncertain but there is a good likelihood that humans will be playing God in future, now that human traits can be manipulated in the laboratory.


   

References

1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/eugenics.
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics.
3. www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics.
4. Galton F. Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: J M Dent and Sons, 1943:17.
5. Galton DJ, Galton CJ. Francis Galton: and eugenics today. Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:99-105.
6. David J Galton. Greek theories on eugenics. Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:263-267.
7. Norrgard, K. (2008) Human testing, the eugenics movement, and IRBs. Nature Education 1(1):170.
8. Galton Institute. Later life. The eugenic vision at http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/sir-francis-galton/eugenics-and-final-years/. Accessed on 22/11/17.
9. The Eugenics Review, 1909, I (Apr.), inside front cover.
10. Camery, Luke. "The Black Stork; Eugenics and Infanticide in twentieth century America" at https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9BESb-X9dvza00wRmFzZjRkUTA/edit. Accessed on 18/11/17
11. Lombardo, Paul. "Eugenic Sterilization Laws." Eugenics Archived. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2014. <http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay8text.html>.
12. Black, Edwin. "The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics." History News Network. N.p., Sept. 2003. Web. 07 May 2014. <http://hnn.us/article/1796>.
13. Buck vs. Bell Trial at http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/39.html. Accessed on 19/11/17.
14. Moser HW. Genetic causes of mental retardation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004 Dec;1038:44-8.
15. Lichtenstein, P., Yip, B. H., Björk, C., Pawitan, Y., Cannon, T. D., Sullivan, P. F., & Hultman, C. M. (2009). Common genetic influences for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: A population-based study of 2 million nuclear families. Lancet, 2009; 373(9659), 10.1016/S0140–6736(09)60072–6. 
16. Dimitri M Kullmann. Genetics of epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73(Suppl II):ii 32–ii 35.
17. Fontaine N, Viding E. Genetics of personality disorders. Psychiatry 2008; 7(3): 137-141.
18. Philip Hunter. The psycho gene. EMBO Rep. 2010 Sep; 11(9): 667–669.
19. Howard J. Edenberg. The Genetics of Alcohol Metabolism: Role of Alcohol Dehydrogenase and Aldehyde Dehydrogenase Variants. Alcohol Res Health. 2007; 30(1): 5–13.
20. Holocaust Teacher Resource Centre at http://www.holocaust-trc.org/handicapped/.
21. Chapter 5 The Nazi Eugenics Programs at https://highschoolbioethics.georgetown.edu/units/cases/unit4_5.html. Accessed on 21/11/17.
22. Ernest W. Barnes, ‘Reply to Fisher RE: Artificial Insemination,’ (20 February 1945), The Papers of E.W. Barnes, Special Collections Library, University of Birmingham, 9/21/10 (Hereafter: EWB X/YY/ZZ).
23. Merricks, P (2014) Should such a faith offend? Bishop Barnes and the British eugenics movement, c. 1924-1953 PhD, Oxford Brookes University.
24.  Inge, ‘Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics’, The Eugenics Review, 1:1 (April 1909), p. 34.
25. Patrick T. Merricks (2012): ‘God and the Gene’: E.W. Barnes on Eugenics and Religion, Politics, Religion & Ideology, 13:3, 353-374.
26. Zahedi F, Larijani B. Medical genetic ethics, Islamic views and considerations in Iran. Daru. 2006;14(suppl 1):48–55.
27. Mohsen A.F. El-Hazmi, Ethics of genetic counseling —basic concepts and relevance to Islamic communities. Ann Saudi Med. 2004; 24(2): 84-92.
28. Jamal Zarabozo. Is family planning allowed in Islam? At http://www.islamswomen.com/marriage/is_family_planning_allowed_in_islam.php. Accessed on 26/11/17.
29. Roy TN. Hindu eugenics. Journal of Heredity, Volume 18, Issue 2, 1 February 1927, Pages 67–72.
30. Jeremy Rifkin. Genetic Commerce and the Dawn of a New Era at http://90.146.8.18/En/archiv_files/19991/E1999_047.pdf. Accessed on 1/12/17.
31. Ewing CM. Tailored genes: IVF, genetic engineering, and eugenics. Reprod Genet Eng. 1988;1(1):31-40. 
32. Emtage, J. S. 1985. DNA makes protein makes money. Nature 317:185-186.
33. Russell Powell. The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):22 (2010).
34. Liang, P., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Ding, C., Huang, R., Zhang, Z., … Huang, J. (2015). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein & Cell, 6(5), 363–372. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5.
35. Sarah Knapton. China shocks world by genetically engineering human embryos at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11558305/China-shocks-world-by-genetically-engineering-human-embryos.html. Accessed on 1/12/17.