Buck vs. Bell Lee M. Silver\'s Remaking

Buck vs. Bell

Lee M. Silver's Remaking Eden and Dr. Leon R. Kass' Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity provide differing perspectives on the applicability of the issue of the case of Buck vs. Bell to today's society. In Buck vs. Bell, eugenics and Social Darwinism spurred a Supreme Court decision that allowed forced sterilization. In Remaking Eden, the perspective of Silver effectively argues that the case of Buck vs. Bell is not at all applicable to genetic issues today. Silver's optimistic stance on genetic engineering seems to indicate that human innovativeness and ingenuity will allow humans to successfully use genetic technologies to improve the world. In contrast, Kass' perspective suggests that the case of Buck vs. Bell is highly applicable to genetic issues today. Kass notes that even well-meaning and benevolent applications of technology can have devastating impacts on human dignity, echoing a theme found in the violation of the rights of Carrie Buck.

Early this century, the Supreme Court case of Buck vs. Bell upheld the West Virginia law that allowed forced sterilization of those who were considered "feebleminded." In the decision, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. noted, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." As a result of this decision, Carrie Buck was sterilized, as both she and her daughter, Emma, were deemed to be "feebleminded" (Syracuse University).

Interestingly, Emma, whom Carrie Buck gave birth to before her sterilization, did well in school. She made the honor role, and was a good student. As such, it appears that the sterilization of Carrie Buck was carried out on an incorrect diagnosis of "feeblemindedness." It appears that eugenics and Social Darwinism that underscored the Buck vs. Bell decision were ultimately based on a faulty understanding of genetics (Syracuse University).

There is more to the case of Buck vs. Bell than the simple misunderstanding of genetic principles, however. The sterilization of Carrie Buck and others like her was guided by society's belief that those who were deficient or inferior should not be allowed to reproduce in order to improve the human species. In Carrie Buck's case, it seems that "feeblemindedness" was the justification for her sterilization, but that other factors may have been at play. Carrie was young and presumably unmarried, and thus likely violated many social norms. Here, we see that Carrie's forced sterilization was driven by a number of factors, including a misunderstanding of genetics, her lack of adherence to social 'norms', and the desire to improve the human species through eugenics and Social Darwinism.

Today, forced sterilization is no longer allowed in American society. However, issues like genetic screening and the potential for genetic manipulation have raised new concerns. The perspective of Lee M. Silver, in his book Remaking Eden, suggests that the case of Buck vs. Bell is not at all applicable to genetic issues today. Instead, his optimistic stance on genetic engineering seems to suggest that human nature will allow humans to use genetic technologies to improve on the world as it exists today.

In Remaking Eden, Silver provides a largely optimistic look at the impact of technology in allowing humans to genetically engineer human life. A Princeton professor, Silver looks into the future of genetic engineering, and makes predictions about scientific advances that go beyond cloning. He also discusses a number of topics, including in vitro fertilization, cloning, and the point at which life can be said to begin.

Throughout the book, Silver suggests that humans will be able to move beyond their lack of understanding of genetic issues to use genetic engineering for the good of mankind. In these discussions, Silver attempts to clear up a number of misconceptions about genetic engineering. For example, he notes that clones will be no different from other people, and possess their own thoughts and opinions, rather than that of their parent. In this argument, he clearly negates the case of Bell vs. Buck, where a lack of understanding of genetics played a role in forced sterilization. As such, he suggests that the future will not be marred with such lack of understanding, and that humans will be able to make informed choices about genetic technologies.

Overall, Silver's look at genetic technologies is largely optimistic. He notes that the emergence of in vitro fertilization (IVF) marked an important point in human history. It was with the emergence of INF, argues Silver, that human beings grasped their reproductive destiny.

Silver tackles the implications of reproductive engineering by assessing the right of parents to genetically enhance their children. A society that allows rich parents to choose private education for their offspring, argues Silver, cannot justifiably argue that it is 'unfair' for wealthy parents to genetically enhance their children.

Throughout the book, Silver exudes confidence in the ability of human beings to use genetic technology. First, he repeatedly asserts that humans will be able to provide safe and proven technologies to manipulate the human genome. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, he argues that human nature itself will help to ensure that humans will use genetic technologies to change the world for the better.

Silver's optimism about the inherent ability of humans to create a better future through genetic technology clearly suggests that the case of Buck vs. Bell is not at all applicable to genetic issues today. In the case of Buck vs. Bell, humans clearly failed to create a better future through blind adherence to eugenics and Social Darwinism, and a disregard for individual rights.

It is unfair, however, to suggest that Silver sees an entirely positive future for genetic engineering. In particular, he looks into the societal ramifications of a society where the rich can afford to genetically engineer their offspring, and the poor cannot. Silver states, "one might imagine GenRich parents put intense pressure on their children not to dilute their expensive genetic endowment in this way [intermarriage between GenRich and Naturals]. And as time passes, the mixing of the classes will become less and less frequent for reasons of both environment and genetics. The environmental reason is clear enough: GenRich and Natural children grow up and live in segregated social worlds where there is little chance for contact between them."

In contrast, Dr. Leon R. Kass' perspective in Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity suggests that the case of Buck vs. Bell is highly applicable to genetic issues today. He argues that the application of genetic technologies often endangers human dignity, and that even benevolent application of genetic technologies can have disastrous results. This argument essentially reiterates the lesson seen in Buck vs. Bell where the desire to improve the human species resulted in violations of individual rights.

Kass sees human nature as tied fundamentally to the concept of human dignity. Dignity, he suggests, is "our awareness of need, limitation, and mortality to craft a way of being that has engagement, depth, beauty, virtue, and meaning." To Kass, to be fully human is to embrace and protect the idea of human dignity.