Those who advocate for new eugenics generally think selecting or altering embryos should be left to the preferences of parents, rather than forbidden or left to the preferences of the state. Opponents argue that such practices may lead to increased social inequality and create new types of stigma against people with genetic traits deemed undesirable.
Eugenics is sometimes broken into the categories of positive eugenics (encouraging reproduction among those designated "fit") and negative eugenics (discouraging or prohibiting reproduction among those designated "unfit"). Both positive and negative eugenic programs were advocated and pursued during the early 20th century. Negative programs were responsible for the compulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of persons in many countries, and were a cornerstone of Nazi eugenic policies of racial hygiene which ultimately led to genocide.[2]
New eugenics generally supports genetic modification or genetic selection of individuals for traits that are supposed to improve human welfare. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic basis of future generations and reduce the incidence of genetic diseases and other traits considered undesirable. Some of the practices included in new eugenics are: prenatal testing,[3] pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection,[4][5] selective breeding,[6] and human embryo engineering and gene therapy.[7][8]
This section needs expansionwith: Needs more information on the reasons behind the criticisms: disability rights perspective and social pressure if many people use the technologies. You can help by adding missing information. (February 2026)
Arguments used in favor of new eugenics include the claim that it is in the best interest of society that progeny have the best chance of achieving success as defined by that society.[8] Ethical arguments against new eugenics include the claim that creating designer babies is not in the best interest of society, as it might create a breach between genetically modified individuals and natural individuals.[9] Additionally, some of these technologies might be economically restrictive, further increasing the socio-economic gap.[6]
The United Nations International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical status of new eugenics should not be conflated with that of 20th century eugenics movements. Nevertheless they state that new eugenics is problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new ways of discrimination and stigmatization against those who do not want or cannot afford genetic enhancements.[10]
↑International Bioethics Committee (October 2, 2015). "Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights"(PDF). UNESCO. OCLC932076434. Retrieved October 22, 2015. The goal of enhancing individuals and the human species by engineering the genes related to some characteristics and traits is not to be confused with the barbarous projects of eugenics that planned the simple elimination of human beings considered as 'imperfect' on an ideological basis. However, it impinges upon the principle of respect for human dignity in several ways. It weakens the idea that the differences among human beings, regardless of the measure of their endowment, are exactly what the recognition of their equality presupposes and therefore protects. It introduces the risk of new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who cannot afford such enhancement or simply do not want to resort to it. The arguments that have been produced in favour of the so-called liberal eugenics do not trump the indication to apply the limit of medical reasons also in this case.
![[icon]](?wiki_title=File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}