ABSTRACT
Scientists and ethicists often lament the emotionality and irrationality of the various positions maintained by critics of germline gene ‘therapy’1 in political discussion and in the media. This is particularly the case with respect to positions which rely on a characterisation of germline gene ‘therapy’ as eugenic (Fletcher 1995). The role of applied ethics in this context is primarily viewed as that of contributing to the rationality and objectivity of the discussion. The public is to be informed.21 want to advance the hypothesis that the bioethical discussion up until now has not achieved this and has not been able to achieve it, because under the notion of eugenics quite different things are understood. According to position and context, the notion of eugenics is given a biological, historical or socio-cultural interpretation. I will briefly sketch these three different interpretations, which incidentally are not always separable, so that I can afterwards show which positions and arguments are to be located on which level of interpretation. I want to argue that it is possible to reconstruct rationally a core of the positions which rely on a socio-cultural understanding of eugenics and that this core provides a good argument against germline gene ‘therapy’. First however I want to address the positions which are maintained in the public.
