Eugenics and Genetics 
Muller was much more eloquent than I can be on this subject— 
and because public opinion on this subject is so far behind, 
we should start to do something about that now. I would 
therefore like to raise a number of questions of a more ethical 
nature. I do this with great reservations because it 1s my 
opinion, in spite of Sir Julian’s eloquent arguments, that we 
really do not have a proper philosophical foundation for 
humanist ethics. Nevertheless, if we do not accept Christian 
ethics, or the ethics of some other religion, we obviously have 
to have some other guidance. These rather vague terms like 
“fulfilment” appear to be the best we can do, but I do not feel 
they are satisfactory. 
I want to concentrate on one particular issue: do people 
have the right to have children at all? It would not be very 
difficult, as we gathered from Dr. Pincus, for a government to 
put something into our food so that nobody could have 
children. Then possibly—and this is hypothetical—they could 
provide another chemical that would reverse the effect of the 
first, and only people licensed to bear children would be given 
this second chemical. This isn’t so wild that we need not 
discuss it. Is it the general feeling that people do have the right 
to have children? This is taken for granted because it is part 
of Christian ethics, but in terms of humanist ethics I do not 
see why people should have the right to have children. I think 
that if we can get across to people the idea that their children 
are not entirely their own business and that it is not a private 
matter, it would be an enormous step forward. If one did have 
a licensing scheme, the first child might be admitted on rather 
easy terms. If the parents were genetically unfavourable, they 
might be allowed to have only one child, or possibly two under 
certain special circumstances. That seems to me the sort of 
practical problem that is raised by our new knowledge of 
biology. But let me come down to practical measures, because 
I think what I have described is a bit extreme. 
Lederberg and I have arrived independently at an idea 
(which I hope he does not mind me quoting) that the type of 
solution which might become socially acceptable is simply to 
275 
