eugenics, 2070
Post on 28-Oct-2021
17 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
FUTURISTIC INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICS COMMITTEE
(IBC)
EUGENICS, 2070 BACKGROUND GUIDE
VILLA CARITAS & SAN PEDRO MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2019
2
Dear Delegates, It is an honor to welcome you to the third edition of Villa Caritas and San Pedro Model United Nations! My name is Isabella Carrera and I have the pleasure to be your director for the Futuristic Bioethics Committee of the United Nations. Having graduated from Villa Caritas in 2017, I am currently studying my second year of Law at Universidad de Lima. My MUN experience began in 2015, and before the first committee session of my first MUN was even over, I already knew I wanted to pursue this for as long as I could. Since then, I have attended numerous national and international conferences, and chaired several committees in the past years. I also became part of the second and third generations of United Schools of Peru (USP) while I was still in high school. Last year I made one of the best decisions and became part of Peruvian Universities (PU), a university level MUN team which whom I had the opportunity to travel to Madrid this past March to debate in Harvard WorldMUN, where I won a diplomacy award. On another note, besides MUN, I have a passion for history, politics and Broadway shows, and I also enjoy reading, listening to music and watching a LOT of Netflix during my free time (I’ve seen almost every TV show you can imagine). Shadia and I have been wanting to do a futuristic committee on eugenics for years and being proud alumni of Villa Caritas, to be able to do it in our school’s conference and with her as Secretary General, is truly an achievement. This topic and this committee are both unusual. Eugenics is not a traditional MUN topic. However, it is REAL (please remember this). And although it is a futuristic committee, as you will see in this study guide, the different aspects of the problem and policies countries might have are based on facts. So I will expect you to take it with a certain level of seriousness. Please bear in mind that eugenics is an extremely broad and technical topic, as it is a mix of medicine and technology with social, economic and most importantly, international aspects. Nevertheless, futuristic committees have a fun and creative nature and will demand that you think outside the box. Personally, I am usually a very content-oriented delegate, so as a chair I do expect delegates in my committee to have a certain level of research. I truly enjoy watching content be transformed into a fun and witty speech, and used as a tool during negotiations, so please try to avoid delivering monotone speeches that just provide a bunch of information. Be creative. Take risks. Stand out. There is nothing more rewarding as a chair than to see delegates truly enjoying the debate. So remember to have fun as well! I can’t wait to meet you all and hear your ideas! Whether you are an experienced delegate or a first timer, it is normal to be nervous, especially with this topic and committee, so please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any doubts or just want to introduce yourselves. Good luck!
Isabella Carrera
Chair – Futuristic International Bioethics Committee
Villa Caritas & San Pedro Model United Nations 2019
3
I . HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE
The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) is a sub-body of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It is conformed by 36 independent experts
that meet once a year, convened by the Director General of UNESCO. The committee
monitors progress and gives advice and recommendations on topics regarding science and
its applications in order to ensure respect for human dignity and freedom. It was created in
1993 by Dr Federico Mayor Zaragoza, General Director of UNESCO at that time.
Image 1 - Logos of United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization and the
International Bioethics Committee
Source: The United Nations
The IBC committee provides the only global forum for reflection regarding bioethics, and was
created with the task of preparing an international instrument on the human genome.
Throughout the years, as science, medicine and technology develop, the IBC has issued a
series of statements regarding eugenics and gene-related practices. “Gene therapy could be
a watershed in the history of medicine and genome editing is unquestionably one of the most
promising undertakings of science for the sake of all humankind” as stated by UNESCO in a
news release on a report by the IBC. However, the IBC has always been aware of the possible
risks of these practices and has voiced its concerns in several occasions. It has stated that
“Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or
therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants”, and that the
alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings
and renew eugenics”.
The main objective of this committee is to protect the human genome from incorrect
manipulations that may endanger the identity and physical integrity of future generations. To
this end, it recognizes the human genome as "the heritage of humanity" and declares
"contrary to human dignity" practices such as human cloning and germline intervention.
Consequently, eugenics is a topic of utter importance for the IBC, especially focusing on their
efforts to prevent a situation in which the human modification is a reality.
4
I I . HISTORY OF THE ISSUE
A. EARLY BEGINNINGS
Eugenics refers to the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human
populations, which aims to improve the population's genetic composition. Since the
application of the term by Francis Galton in 1883, it has been closely linked to Charles
Darwin’s theory of natural selection. However, the concept of selective breeding and genetic
superiority has existed since Plato’s suggestions to apply selective breeding in order to
improve general human race quality in 400 BC, and perhaps since much earlier.
Historically, humans have always aspired to improve their genetic lineage. In ancient
civilizations, small, weak or disabled children were thrown in rivers and killed, bringing shame
to their families. In Sparta, every child had to be approved by the council of elders, who
decided if he or she was fit to live or not; and in Rome, if a child was physically disabled, the
law stated that his father had the obligation to terminate his life. Moreover, the first official
form of negative eugenics was recorded in Western Europe in 506, which refers to a law
prohibiting the marriage between cousins and the birth of “inferior human beings”.
Leaping into the 19th century, after Galton’s introduction of eugenics, it became an incredibly
popular topic among scholars, biologists and social scientists, who sought to determine the
extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited, including the
predictability of intelligence and certain social behaviors. It soon became a taught discipline
in colleges, and received funding from various private and public sources for its research. It
quickly became a widely debated and polemic topic, which led to the creation of
organizations focused on increasing public support towards responsible eugenics, such as the
British Eugenics Education Society, and the American Eugenics Society, among others
worldwide.
Image 2: Logo of the second Eugenics Conference that took place in the Museum of Natural History in
New York in 1921
Soon, these organizations sought for a forum where they could discuss research and
advances. Therefore, the International Eugenics Conference was created, and as a
5
consequence of it, the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations was also
established. Three of these conferences took place in 1912, 1921 and 1932 in London and
New York. Coincidentally, the United States was the first to properly adopt eugenics policies
in the early 1900’s, followed by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. After the second
and third conferences, in which “the elimination of the unfit” was discussed, several countries
including Belgium, Sweden, Brazil, Canada and Japan started to implement an eugenics
policy of sterilizing mentally ill individuals, and thus began the rise and fall of the so called
“negative eugenics”.
B. THE RISE AND FALL OF “NEGATIVE EUGENICS” After the first International Conference of Eugenics took place in London, a Permanent
International Eugenics Committee was established. It initially dealt with and discussed
research and advances regarding the regulation of human reproduction, heredity, racial
differences and eugenics in general. However, it soon began focusing on negative eugenics
and the control of undesirable reproduction (as mentioned before this was widely discussed
in the second and third international eugenics conferences).
In 1925, it was renamed the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO) and an
American, Charles Davenport, was chosen as its president. He was a key player in directing
the organization towards the development of negative eugenics, and as its president he even
aimed to persuade international leaders into adopting negative eugenics policies by warning
them of the dangers of the reproduction of the unfit. The IFEO met every 2 years and during
the 1930’s, the German stance dominated the discussions. Therefore, it was not surprising
when, in 1932, Nazi psychiatrist and geneticist Ernst Rüdin was selected as Davenport’s
successor. By 1934, the IFEO had extended all over the world and was not limited to Europe
and North America anymore. Some of its member states included Argentina, Belgium, Cuba,
the Dutch East Indies, England, Estonia, France, Italy, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland,
and the United States (some countries such as Germany were only permitted to join after
World War I).
However, with Rüdin as president, negative eugenics began to lose popularity. As a proud
member of the Nazi party and loyal supporter of Adolf Hitler, he used eugenics to justify the
racial policies of the Fuhrer, which were based on the biological improvement of the Aryan
race. During this period of time the term “racial hygiene” was used to refer to eugenics, and
its programs were funded by wealthy members of the Nazi party and were shaped to
complement their policies. These programs were based on the USA’s programs and laws on
sterilization, and as a consequence, the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased
Offspring was enacted in 1933.
6
It called for the compulsory sterilization of any citizen who suffered from any genetic disorder,
according to the opinion of a "Genetic Health Court", and required physicians to register
every case of hereditary illness known to them. By the end of the Nazi regime, over 200
Hereditary Health Courts were created. Over 400,000 people had been sterilized, and up to
300,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.
Image 3 - Nazi eugenics exhibition in the 1930s reads, “Sterilization is Liberation, Not a Punishment.”
Three handicapped children are also pictured with the caption “Who would want to be responsible for
this?”
Source: Facing History
Moreover, eugenics-related human experiments became more popular with the
establishment of concentration camps. Josef Mengele, a doctor in Auschwitz, supervised
several of these experiments, such as using chemical eye drops in order to try and create blue
eyes. Most of his patients ended up dying or permanently disabled. These atrocities caused
many eugenics-supporting countries to question their stances and soon the IFEO lost the
little remaining popularity it had. A year after Rüdin was chosen as president, a separatist
movement of eugenicists led by Italian sociologist Corrado Gini established the Latin
International Federation of Eugenics Organizations, which gave a space to those opposed to
the radical negative eugenics approach of the IFEO, and focused on the encouragement of
the reproduction of the “fit”. Member states included Argentina, Brazil, Catalonia, France,
Mexico, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.
C. ANTI-EUGENICS MOVEMENTS AFTER WORLD WAR II
After the war ended, most discriminatory eugenics laws and policies were left aside, as they
were associated with Nazi Germany. This sparked a huge anti-eugenics movement, and
consequently, a series of measures were taken by the International Community. With the
adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the
practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group" was now considered as an international crime of genocide. Europe, after
witnessing first hand the consequences of negative eugenics, took the most radical stance,
proclaiming in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union "the prohibition of
7
eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".
However, in spite of the decline of negative eugenics and discriminatory laws, some
governments continued practicing them into the 21st century. Between 1990 and 2000, 2,000
persons were allegedly involuntarily sterilized in Peru during the government of President
Alberto Fujimori. China maintained its extreme population planning measures, which
included a one-child adopted from 1979 to 2015, as well as other eugenics-based legislation
to reduce population and manage the fertility rates of different populations. Furthermore, the
United Nations reported forced sterilizations and hysterectomies in Uzbekistan in 2007, and
throughout 2005 to 2013, nearly one-third of California prison inmates were subject to forced
sterilizations as well.
D. THE NEW “EUGENICS”
With the fall in popularity of negative eugenics due to their application by the Nazi party in
Germany, by 1940 many leaders of the eugenics movement were calling for a “new
eugenics”. This did not involve a change in purpose, but rather a change in tactics, renaming
it as genetic counseling. However, once the war was officially over and as medical technology
advanced, other forms of eugenics appeared besides genetic counseling. Some of these
included genetic screening, fetal gene manipulation, and the treatment of adults suffering
from hereditary disorders. Genetic screening became extremely popular in the late 20th
century, as it gave the possibility to parents to know the odds that their unborn child would
be affected by some combination of their hereditary backgrounds.
On the other hand, the direct manipulation of harmful genes began to be studied. This trend
of medical progress aimed to give victims of genetic diseases the possibility to live a normal
live. However, debate sprung between more traditional negative eugenicists and the new
eugenics movements as, if perfected, this method could obviate their arguments for
restricting the reproduction of people carrying harmful genes.
Moreover, between 1990 and 2003, the United States Government launched the Human
Genome Project (HGP). It was the largest scientific project funded by federal assets since the
Apollo Moon Project in 1961. The HGP worked as an international, collaborative research
program, and its objective was the complete mapping and understanding of all the genes of
human beings. Its results gave scientists all around the world the ability, for the first time, to
read nature's complete genetic blueprint to build a human being. HGP also found that certain
genomic sequences can be used to predict physical or intellectual fitness in an individual or
predilection to a serious disease, and considering that in the past several racial characteristics
have been used when defining eugenic policies, this knowledge could be potentially
dangerous. Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New
8
World” genetics as well as the “New Eugenics”, and were further developed in the 21st
century.
E. DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCES OF MODERN EUGENICS
The first 20 years of the 21st century were essential for the development of modern eugenic
practices and embryo selection. Modern eugenics, also known as human engineering, refers
to the manipulation of genes to change or improve a human being. During this period of
time, scientists finally perfected genetic screening. It allowed doctors to diagnose certain
genetic defects in the unborn, which resulted in a substantial increase of pregnancy
terminations. The most common procedure is through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) embryo
screening, which works through the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and involves
extracting cells from embryos at a very early stage and “reading” their genomes before
choosing which one to implant. Scientists also made it possible to accurately predict the IQ of
the embryo from genome data. The company Genomic Prediction was the first one to take it
to the market, giving parents the possibility of selecting embryos according to their
intelligence.
However, the most exciting upcoming genetic technology was not embryo selection but the
possibility to modify embryos or genetic engineering, because genetic engineering can do
something that embryo selection can’t: genetic enhancement and the possibility to choose
the medical and non-medical traits of the future baby. In a world where perfection is almost
mandatory, the market and demand for these “designer babies” started growing without
even having the finished product. Therefore, as soon as scientists and politicians discovered
that it was possible to actually create them, the race for designer babies began.
Image 4 - DNA and Genetic Modification
Source: Business Insider
Several companies in the United States were quick to lead the attempts to create these
babies. They had the advantage of not having any national legislation that restricted gene
editing, but were however limited by the fact that federal funding of germline gene editing
research is prohibited, and most American geneticists rely on government grants for their
9
research. Other highly advanced countries regarding medicine and technology had bans on
germline genetic modification, such as the European Union, Canada and Australia, which
restricted the efforts of scientists to develop these mechanisms. Moreover, the general
opinion of western citizens was not entirely in favor of the idea of human enhancement. All of
these limitations made Asia the frontrunner for human enhancement.
In 2015, China became the first country to edit the genes of human embryos using the
CRISPR-cas9 tool, with the sponsorship of the Chinese government. Being a country that is
traditionally less sensitive to public opinion and willing to reject international standards in
order to achieve their own interests gave them it a general advantage. The fact that an
increase in intelligence could potentially increase a nation’s economic growth, the
enhancement of physical traits improve the performance of athletes in international
competitions, and the alterations of violent traits could reduce crimes rates, encouraged the
Chinese government to take the leap. In 2018 two Chinese girls who had been genetically
modified as embryos by Chinese scientist He Jiankui were born. They were the first
genetically modified babies. Although they had the technology since 2018, they finally
perfected the mechanism to create designer babies in 2020.
F. THE ERA OF “DESIGNER BABIES”
Throughout the next 50 years, the designer babies industry grew at a dangerous speed. After
China’s breakthrough, Chinese private companies were quick to plant laboratories in smaller
Asian countries, and entered the industry in some major ones such as Japan and South Korea.
This led to competition with national companies after a few years.
Russia was next in figuring out how to create them and started developing their own
technology. Having a strong eugenics history, large portions of the world’s population, and
significant importance in the international sphere, it only took Russia months to catch up with
China. Gene-Tech in Pakistan was the first company in the Middle East to offer genetic
engineering, and also took designer babies to countries that were part of their regional
cooperation groups, such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh and other countries in central Asia and
South America. Moreover, the United States Government remained seemingly uninvolved
with the advances of eugenics. However, as soon as China released the possibility of having
designer babies into the market, funding for individual scientists by private companies
skyrocketed. The first ones to open the market in the US for designer babies was Genentech
or Genetic Engineering Tech, Inc., one of the leading American corporations for
biotechnology, and it was followed by several others including Genomic Prediction.
On the other hand, scientists in Europe were desperate to enter the industry. As mentioned
before, the European Union had imposed several bans on research and development of
10
eugenics. However, the market for designer babies in Europe was one of the strongest,
especially after the refugee crisis had “stained” the traditional European race. As a
consequence, despite having some of the best laboratories and resources in Europe, several
European scientists migrated to developing countries with no competition or restrictive
geneline legislation. However, the market for designer babies in developing countries was
small. Most of these scientists had settled in the poorest regions of Africa, where getting the
human resources needed to perfect the procedure was extremely cheap. However, due to
the economically weak character of the region, the market for designer babies was extremely
limited. Africa suddenly became a hotspot for cheap eugenics practices, and welcomed
mainly the middle class of most European countries who were desperate to improve the traits
of their offspring, and those who had once been refugees and didn’t want their children to be
subject to the same discrimination they had suffered throughout their lives.
Today, the percentage of enhanced humans represents 27% of the world’s population (and it
continued to grow at a high speed), mostly concentrated in people under 35. Out of all
newborns in 2069, 38.5% where enhanced. Although we have only seen the first generation
of designer babies, they show significant effects on society, and they definitely have the
potential to pose a threat to social cohesion.
I I I . ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
A. THE INDUSTRY
The era of designer babies and their blooming industry gave many scientists the opportunity
to make millions. Many who started their careers hoping to treat sick people and prevent
suffering, are now earning millions of dollars enhancing the traits of the future generations.
Previous physical enhancements, such as those in cosmetic surgery, were intended to help
people conform to expectations created by sexism, racism and ageism, and set out by
western standards of beauty. This is why the cosmetics and plastic surgery industries were so
successful. Nevertheless, once we start designing children to look, act and be the way we
want them to, we are erasing the fundamental ethical difference between consumer
commodities and human beings.
Even before designer babies were a possibility, the eugenics industry was very profitable,
especially if you already had the traits other people wanted their offspring to have. In the egg
donor market, while ordinary working-class women got paid USD 5,000 for their eggs, tall,
blonde, and slim Ivy League students or alumni got USD 50,000. And in those times, they
couldn’t even ensure that the finished product, or baby in this case, was going to have those
traits. Now that it is possible to ensure it, imagine how much people are willing to pay.
11
Image 5 - Cartoon published in the Spectator, which portrays the modifications that can be done to the
human genome with eugenics
Source: The Spectator
During the first years in the market, gene modification was expensive even considered a
luxury for the upper classes. However, the procedure itself, after being perfected, was not.
Labs and companies decided to keep the price up to give it status, considering that gene
sequencing costs less than USD 100 and it can help ensure which embryo gives the best
possibility of implantation, making IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) cheaper as well. The whole
procedure started at about USD 50,000 and increased depending on the modifications (it
could go up to USD 300,000). However, in countries where the government itself was backing
the eugenics movement, the procedure was significantly cheaper and more affordable.
Moreover, once the labs in Africa managed by European scientists began offering the
possibility of designer babies, the price dropped significantly. It stopped being a luxury and
started selling as a product destined for the masses, pricing even as low as USD 500 in
unregistered labs, also called “black labs” making reference to a small yet growing black
market for designer babies, especially in Africa, and in Europe, where a few have started to
pop out.
B. ECONOMIC GAPS Scholar Bill McKibben once suggested that, “emerging reprogenetic technologies would be
disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating
the gap between rich and poor and creating a ‘genetic divide’”. The creation of a new “race”
of enhanced humans has definitely had economic impacts. In general terms, countries with a
significant percentage of their workforce being enhanced are projected to increase their GDP
in the next few years, which will cause a wider division between developed and developing
countries. As most developing countries do not have the technology and know-how
necessary to carry out eugenics procedures, their percentage of enhanced individuals is very
low in comparison to that of a developed country. Enhanced humans, as previously
mentioned are smarter, medically stronger, and more productive than the unenhanced.
Hence, a country with a high percentage of them will produce more and develop more.
12
Furthermore, and at a much more national levels, job crises are emerging. Every rational
human being will usually give a job to the most capable person. However, how can a normal
individual compete with someone who is genetically designed to have a higher IQ and
enhanced capabilities? Besides that, most of the enhanced are modified to have no medical
baggage, which assures companies that if they hire them, they won’t get sick as easily.
As can be seen, the odds are in favor of enhanced humans. And with the first generation of
them entering the workforce, we are now experimenting the consequences of this. The gap
between the rich and the poor is the most noticeable one. Most ordinary people left in
countries were eugenics is common, are ordinary because their family could not afford to
make them otherwise. And now that it is more difficult for them to get a job, they are stuck in
a new type of poverty cycle. Up to now, no measures to address this issue have been taken
by the International Community.
C. SOCIAL EFFECTS: DISCRIMINATION, SEGREGATION AND MIGRATION
Maxwell J. Mehlman argued that our democratic society could be endangered if unequal
access to genetic enhancement technology created a "genobility", and the gap between the
genetically enhanced and unenhanced widens. Moreover, biologist Lee M. Silver, who
created the term "reprogenetics" and supported its applications, expressed his concern in
several occasions that these methods “could create a two-tiered society of genetically-
engineered ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ if social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of
reprogenetic technologies”. They were right.
Social inequality written into DNA. That is what happens once a society is created in which
wealthy people’s children get biological advantages over other children and the basic notions
of human equality are lost. Even using low-tech methods, such as those still used in many
Asian countries to select out girls (resulting in a global shortage of more than 100 million
women), the social consequences of allowing prejudices and competitiveness to control how
and which people get born are worrying.
Today, the social gap between the enhanced and the unenhanced is irrevocably wide. Due to
their features, the dangerous sense of superiority seen in World War II is back and in a larger
percentage of the world’s population. Not only are the unenhanced considered to be “less”,
but also they are often subject to hate crimes, and a new type of xenophobia and
discrimination has become more popular.
In countries such as China or Russia, which have adopted deeply eugenics-based legislations
and in which the own government drives enhancement, there has been a notable segregation
of the unenhanced. Not only were they seen as the lowest social group, but also
13
neighborhoods were built exclusively for the enhanced. There were special school programs
and activities available only to them. Even for sports teams and jobs the enhanced had a
genetic advantage against the unenhanced in almost every aspect of life.
With the building of new neighborhoods, a new type of segregation is born, and the
International Community fears that it will become a situation such as the one seen in the
United States during the 19th and 20th century, where there were special places people of
color could not access; or the one seen in Germany, where they separated the Jews and the
“unfit” from the rest of the population.
Moreover, the top universities of the world, including all Ivy League universities, favored the
enhanced and even offered scholarships exclusively to them. Therefore, besides having a
genetically higher IQ and a clear advantage, they had more chances of getting financial
support than those who actually needed it.
On another note, although countries such as Canada still hold restrictive bans on geneline
editing, their migration policies are more favorable for enhanced humans. Historically, their
visas have always favored those who fitted in with the profile of someone who had certain
skills or attributes that the country needed. Due to the fact that the enhanced had higher IQs
and other improved traits, they could possibly improve the economy and development of the
country.
D. CULTURAL EFFECTS
The cultural consequences of designer babies are crushing. The percentage of white and
Caucasian individuals is growing at a dangerous speed, and racial minorities in developed
countries are slowly disappearing. With the opportunity of choosing the physical traits of their
offspring, racial minorities who can afford eugenic procedures are choosing to manipulate
them so that their skin is lighter, their eyes are bigger, and their bodies are taller, therefore
resembling traditional western beauty standards.
In Asia, where eugenics is promoted by the government, lighter and fairer skin and big eyes
are the highest standards of beauty. Thus, people are choosing to give their offspring these
traits. As a consequence, classic elongated Asian eyes are each day less common among
young children. Moreover, the small African percentage that can afford the procedure has
opted to manipulate the genes of their future babies so that they don’t look “African”,
teaching them English instead of traditional and national African languages, and establishing
themselves as an upper class, thus creating a cultural divide between them and the rest.
Although most Europeans that go to Africa to do the procedure return to their homeland,
there is a very small percentage that stays. They, as well, conform that upper class while
14
contributing to the de-culturization of the region.
In the long run, and if they continue spreading at the same rate they have in the last 50 years,
eugenics practices could mean a possible homogenization of the human race and the loss of
thousands of years of culture.
IV. PAST INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS
A. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN GENOME AND HUMAN RIGHTS
In 1993, the International Bioethics Committee was entrusted with the task of preparing an
international instrument on the human genome. The Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights was adopted unanimously and by acclamation at UNESCO's 29th
General Conference on 11 November 1997. It was endorsed by the United Nations General
Assembly the following year. The main objective of the declaration was to protect the human
genome from being manipulated in a way that may endanger the identity and physical
integrity of future generations.
B. INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN GENETIC DATA
In October 16th, 2003, the International Bioethics Committee unanimously adopted a second
global instrument as an extension of the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome
and Human Rights. This was regarded as the International Declaration on Human Genetic
Data. The document was drafted in response to the rapidly-developing field of genetic data,
which many feared that could be used for purposes contrary to human rights and freedom. It
sets out a number of rules for the collection, use and storage of human genetic data. The
declaration covers genetic discrimination, the right not to know one’s genetic make up,
informed consent in genetics, genetic counseling, benefit sharing, anonymity of personal
genetic information, confidentiality of genetic data, population-based genetic studies, and
international solidarity in genetic research.
C. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights was the last global document
drafted by the International Bioethics Committee (IBC). It was adopted in 2005 to deal with
ethical issues raised by rapid changes in medicine, life sciences and technology. It lists the
human genome as part of the heritage of humanity, outlining rules that need to be observed
to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. It stated that it was
“opportune and desirable to set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard
for human dignity and human rights and freedoms, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent
15
in bioethics”. This new declaration had a much larger capacity than the two previous ones. In
order to ensure that they were in conformity with international human rights law, its objective
was to afford a comprehensive framework of principles that would guide biomedical activities.
V. BLOC POSITIONS
A. THE ANTI EUGENICS MOVEMENT
This group is composed by all of those countries that are completely against eugenic
practices. They believe they attempt against human nature and human rights and should be
strictly regulated and even prohibited. Some of these countries include Australia, Canada and
the European Union as an institution. As stated before, many of these countries already have
laws that limit or restrict eugenic-related research and practices (not all European countries
though; countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain are more liberal in that sense).
However, just because they are against it doesn’t mean that it does not happen in their
countries.
B. THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF EUGENICS
In 2035, with the rise of designer babies, a few countries decided to reestablish the
International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. However, this time they omitted the
“organizations” part because they wanted it to be mainly government-based. It is composed
by all of those countries that support eugenic practices and incite their people to apply them.
Most of them have different government-issued eugenic programs, propaganda and offer
different advantages to the enhanced. They often discuss them in their annual forums and
share information regarding any type of advances in this type of practices. Members include
several Asian countries such as China, Russia, and Pakistan, as well as Brazil and others.
C. OTHER POSITIONS
Different positions than the ones mentioned before include countries that legally allow
eugenic practices, but do not fund them, such as the United States and other countries in
America, which has no laws that restrict the application of these practices and is home to
several of the pioneer companies in the field of biomedicine.
Another position is the one taken by African countries, in which the country itself is not
related to the practices; yet, due to the lack of regulation, many individual scientists and
companies have settled there. However, it is the African population who is suffering the
consequences.
16
*Please note that delegates are in no way forced to strictly follow these blocs. They are just recommendations that should help guide you, however. Due to the nature of this committee, I encourage you to be creative but consistent with your policy
VI. QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER (QARMAS)
1. To what extent should eugenics be regulated? Are there some practices that must be
more strictly regulated than others? Why?
2. Is it possible to develop a new international instrument for eugenic practices? How
can the International Community guarantee that, unlike the previous ones, countries
respect it? And how can we ensure the accountability of those who don’t?
3. What can the IBC do to dissipate the social consequences of designer babies?
4. What can be done to fill in the economic gap and address the job crisis between the
enhanced and the unenhanced?
5. In this new setting with eugenics becoming a stronger and more popular
phenomenon, how can we ensure that the rights of the unenhanced are respected?
VII. CLOSING REMARKS Congratulations on making it to the end of this study guide!
I hope that the information in this guide has been helpful and has made you even more
excited to be part of this committee! It is important to remark that this guide does not
pretend to be at all comprehensive. Eugenics is a very complex and broad topic and
although I have tried my best to cover most aspects of it to give you a solid overview of the
issue, each country has its own history, cases and even methods regarding eugenics. So I
urge all delegates to continue doing extensive research, and learning about the topic past
this study guide.
Moreover, I want to recall that committee wil l take place in 2070, 50 years after
“designer babies” enter the market. As previously stated, I encourage you to think outside
the box and be as creative as possible in terms of ideas, policy and solutions, but always
within the line of reality and feasibility. Throughout the guide I have described the world’s
situation in 2070 as detailed as I could. However, it was impossible for me to describe
absolutely everything that was happening. So I ask you once again, please use your creativity
when picturing reality 51 years from now.
Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions, comments or concerns
regarding committee or the topic. I can’t wait to meet you all in a few weeks. Until then, good
luck!
17
VIII. CONFERENCE PREPARATION
A. RESEARCH
The success of your experience in VCSPMUN will depend heavily on how much preparation
you put in before the conference actually begins. Although research may not seem like the
most fun or exciting activity leading up to a conference, if you put in the necessary effort, it
will definitely pay off during the conference. You will be more knowledgeable, more
prepared, and more confident to deal with whatever comes your way. As you do your
research, you may want to keep a page of notes on key facts, figures, policies and other
important information. Bring a copy of your notes to the conference in order to use them as a
reference (bear in mind that electronic devices are not allowed during committee sessions).
B. POSITION PAPERS
A Position Paper is a policy statement in which delegates analyze and present their country’s
view on the issue being discussed, also focusing on past national and international actions in
order to propose innovative but viable solutions. Your position paper should always include a
heading with the title (“Position Paper”), your delegation (the country you are representing),
your committee (full name), the topic you are discussing (as stated in your study guide), your
full name and the name of your school. Additionally, a standard position paper is comprised
of three paragraphs:
• Your first paragraph should include a brief introduction to the topic, always
connecting the issue to your country. Try to include statistics, data and catchy phrases
that may apply. Always bear in mind that you should be focusing on answering the
question “Why is the issue relevant to my country?” and explain your country’s
situation and policy in relation to the issue.
• Your second paragraph should include a brief summary of past UN action related to
the issue being discussed, always expressing the opinion of your country in relation to
the measures that you are mentioning. Try to focus on which specific actions have had
an impact on your country, and explain how you believe that these measures can be
improved.
• Your third paragraph should focus on proposing solutions, always according to your
country’s policy. Try to be creative and propose original ideas that will help other
delegates (and your dais) to remember your contribution to the debate. Finally, do not
forget to write a strong closing sentence.
Each delegation is responsible for submitting a Position Paper to ibc.vcspmun@prideperu.org
by Tuesday, May 28th (11:59 pm). The general format of Position Papers is one page long,
18
single-spaced, with size 11 Times New Roman font. Please make sure to cite every source
that you use in your Position Paper.
C. RULES OF PROCEDURE
The Rules of Procedure will guide a delegate’s participation throughout the debate. They
contain the rules governing the debate, speeches, points and documents, as well as the rules
governing the vote. The Rules of Procedure have been sent to all delegations via e-mail.
Nevertheless, delegates shall bear in mind that the Secretariat and the Committee Directors
may provide variations to these rules.
D. WRITING RESOLUTIONS
The purpose of the debate, as stated in our philosophy, is to encourage you to develop
comprehensive and pragmatic solutions to the topic being discussed. These solutions should
be embodied in a document called a resolution. The process of drafting a resolution consists
of two main written stages: the Working Paper and the Draft Resolution. Working Papers are
a point of reference for discussion in committee that contain concrete ideas on the topic
under discussion. They do not require a specific format. In contrast, Draft Resolutions are a
formal document in which the committee determines the actions to be taken in order to solve
the problems under discussion. They have a specific format and must include a certain
number of signatories (this will be defined by the dais at the start of the debate).
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ball, P. (2017, January 08). Designer babies: An ethical horror waiting to happen? Retrieved
from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-
waiting-to-happen
Ball, P. (2018, November 19). Super-smart designer babies could be on offer soon. But is that
ethical? | Philip Ball. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/designer-babies-ethical-genetic-
selection-intelligence
Center for Genetics and Society (2019). Eugenics. Retrieved from
https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/topics/eugenics
Do You Fear Eugenics? China Does Not, and that's a Problem - interview with Chad White.
Retrieved from https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/pellissier20150622
19
Douthat, R. (2012, June 09). Eugenics, Past and Future. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/douthat-eugenics-past-and-future.html
Editors, H. (2017, November 15). Eugenics. Retrieved from
https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics
Editors, WHO. (2010, December 08). Genetic counselling services. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/genomics/professionals/counselling/en/
Facing History (2019). Breeding the New German "Race". Retrieved from
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-5/breeding-new-
german-race
Geib, C. (2017, August 09). Expert Argues That Gene Editing Will Widen Economic Class
Gap. Retrieved from https://futurism.com/expert-argues-that-gene-editing-will-widen-
economic-class-gap
Kevles, D. J. (1999, August 14). Eugenics and human rights. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127045/
King, D. (2017, August 04). Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer
eugenics | David King. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/editing-human-genome-
consumer-eugenics-designer-babies
Jackson, E. (2018, July 18). Beware the unintended consequences of genome editing.
Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/283500a6-89a6-11e8-affd-da9960227309
Jones, S. (2004, April 07). EU law on eugenics attacks our freedom. Retrieved from
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3321686/EU-law-on-eugenics-
attacks-our-freedom.html
Leroi, A. M. (2006, December). The future of neo-eugenics. Now that many people approve
the elimination of certain genetically defective fetuses, is society closer to screening all
fetuses for all known mutations? Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1794693/
Loria, K. (2018, July 19). Genetically modified 'designer babies' might be ok, according to a
top ethics council. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/designer-babes-made-
by-editing-embryos-ethics-2018-7
20
Nancy E Hansen; Heidi L Janz; Dick J Sobsey (2018, December). 21st century eugenics?.
Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61889-
9/fulltext
National Human Genome Research Institute (2018, October 28). What is the Human Genome
Project?. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What
Nelson, F. (2016, April 11). The return of eugenics. Retrieved from
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-return-of-eugenics/
Norrgard, K. (2008) Human testing, the eugenics movement, and IRBs. Nature Education.
Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/human-testing-the-eugenics-
movement-and-irbs-724
Rich, M., & Inoue, M. (2019, April 25). Japan to Compensate Forcibly Sterilized Patients,
Decades After the Fact. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/world/asia/japan-sterilization-eugenics-
compensation.html
Schaefer, G. O., & Singapore, N. U. (2016, August 08). Future - China may be the future of
genetic enhancement. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160804-china-
may-be-the-future-of-genetic-enhancement
Smith, H., & Smith, H. (2017, January 12). How Eugenics Legislated Sterilization Around the
World. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@chsmithiii/how-eugenics-legislated-sterilization-
around-the-world-eb5a226d4641
The Economist. (1997, August 28). Here, of all places. Retrieved from
https://www.economist.com/europe/1997/08/28/here-of-all-places
UNESCO. (n.d.). International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genetic-
data/
UNESCO. (n.d.). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-
human-rights/
United Nations (2015, October 5)UN panel warns against 'designer babies' and eugenics in
21
'editing' of human DNA | UN News. Retrieved from
https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/10/511732-un-panel-warns-against-designer-babies-and-
eugenics-editing-human-dna
Wertz, D. (1998). Eugenics is alive and well: A survey of genetic professionals around the
world. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15168676
Wilson, P. K. (2019, February 11). Eugenics. Retrieved from
https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics
Wilson, R. A. (2019, May 10). Eugenics today: Where eugenic sterilisation continues now –
Robert A Wilson | Aeon Essays. Retrieved from https://aeon.co/essays/eugenics-today-where-
eugenic-sterilisation-continues-now
X. DISCLAIMER This background guide has been created by its authors for Promotora Internacional de
Debate (PRIDE Perú) and meant to be used exclusively for Villa Caritas & San Pedro Model
United Nations (VCSPMUN) 2019. The authors of this background guide claim no copyright
or any kind of intellectual property or legal right for the content of this document. However,
this document may not be distributed or reproduced without the express written consent of
its authors, unless used exclusively for educational purposes.
top related