(no subject)
I replied to the following in a journal, part of a larger argument that "unfit" people should be sterilised:
"those with genetic disorders should not breed. We are weakening the gene pool at every turn, especially when it has been statistically proven that those with the lowest common denominator genetically (the poorest, the most uneducated, the most involved with low-profile crime such as petty theft, drug use, and neglect) ARE the ones who will end up breeding the most"
As a biologist I thought it was important to try and point out the flaws in this argument, but over a week later my reply hasn't been unscreened. My journal audience may be a lot smaller, but I'd like my reply to be read by at least one other person as bad science should be corrected:
1) Sickle cell anaemia is a recessive genetic disorder - 2 copies of the gene and you're susceptible to the disease. But being a carrier is advantageous where malaria is endemic, as it protects against the malaria parasite. Therefore, if you sterilise all the carriers, you weaken the population against malaria.
2) By sterilising you'd be weakening the gene pool, not vice versa. Smaller population = less variation, therefore genetic disorders would actually increase as "breeders" would become less and less distantly related.
3) True the poor have the highest birth rate, but is it genetic?
4) Is being a criminal in your genes? I don't think Austrialians would think so, they're no worse than other western societies despite being descendents of a penal colony.
"those with genetic disorders should not breed. We are weakening the gene pool at every turn, especially when it has been statistically proven that those with the lowest common denominator genetically (the poorest, the most uneducated, the most involved with low-profile crime such as petty theft, drug use, and neglect) ARE the ones who will end up breeding the most"
As a biologist I thought it was important to try and point out the flaws in this argument, but over a week later my reply hasn't been unscreened. My journal audience may be a lot smaller, but I'd like my reply to be read by at least one other person as bad science should be corrected:
1) Sickle cell anaemia is a recessive genetic disorder - 2 copies of the gene and you're susceptible to the disease. But being a carrier is advantageous where malaria is endemic, as it protects against the malaria parasite. Therefore, if you sterilise all the carriers, you weaken the population against malaria.
2) By sterilising you'd be weakening the gene pool, not vice versa. Smaller population = less variation, therefore genetic disorders would actually increase as "breeders" would become less and less distantly related.
3) True the poor have the highest birth rate, but is it genetic?
4) Is being a criminal in your genes? I don't think Austrialians would think so, they're no worse than other western societies despite being descendents of a penal colony.