FUTURISTIC INTERNATIONAL BIOETHICS COMMITTEE

(IBC)

EUGENICS, 2070 BACKGROUND GUIDE

VILLA CARITAS & SAN PEDRO MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2019

2

Dear Delegates, It is an honor to welcome you to the third edition of Villa Caritas and San Pedro Model United Nations! My name is Isabella Carrera and I have the pleasure to be your director for the Futuristic Bioethics Committee of the United Nations. Having graduated from Villa Caritas in 2017, I am currently studying my second year of Law at Universidad de Lima. My MUN experience began in 2015, and before the first committee session of my first MUN was even over, I already knew I wanted to pursue this for as long as I could. Since then, I have attended numerous national and international conferences, and chaired several committees in the past years. I also became part of the second and third generations of United Schools of Peru (USP) while I was still in high school. Last year I made one of the best decisions and became part of Peruvian Universities (PU), a university level MUN team which whom I had the opportunity to travel to Madrid this past March to debate in Harvard WorldMUN, where I won a diplomacy award. On another note, besides MUN, I have a passion for history, politics and Broadway shows, and I also enjoy reading, listening to music and watching a LOT of Netflix during my free time (I’ve seen almost every TV show you can imagine). Shadia and I have been wanting to do a futuristic committee on eugenics for years and being proud alumni of Villa Caritas, to be able to do it in our school’s conference and with her as Secretary General, is truly an achievement. This topic and this committee are both unusual. Eugenics is not a traditional MUN topic. However, it is REAL (please remember this). And although it is a futuristic committee, as you will see in this study guide, the different aspects of the problem and policies countries might have are based on facts. So I will expect you to take it with a certain level of seriousness. Please bear in mind that eugenics is an extremely broad and technical topic, as it is a mix of medicine and technology with social, economic and most importantly, international aspects. Nevertheless, futuristic committees have a fun and creative nature and will demand that you think outside the box. Personally, I am usually a very content-oriented delegate, so as a chair I do expect delegates in my committee to have a certain level of research. I truly enjoy watching content be transformed into a fun and witty speech, and used as a tool during negotiations, so please try to avoid delivering monotone speeches that just provide a bunch of information. Be creative. Take risks. Stand out. There is nothing more rewarding as a chair than to see delegates truly enjoying the debate. So remember to have fun as well! I can’t wait to meet you all and hear your ideas! Whether you are an experienced delegate or a first timer, it is normal to be nervous, especially with this topic and committee, so please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any doubts or just want to introduce yourselves. Good luck!

Isabella Carrera

Chair – Futuristic International Bioethics Committee

Villa Caritas & San Pedro Model United Nations 2019

3

I . HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE

The International Bioethics Committee (IBC) is a sub-body of the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). It is conformed by 36 independent experts

that meet once a year, convened by the Director General of UNESCO. The committee

monitors progress and gives advice and recommendations on topics regarding science and

its applications in order to ensure respect for human dignity and freedom. It was created in

1993 by Dr Federico Mayor Zaragoza, General Director of UNESCO at that time.

Image 1 - Logos of United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization and the

International Bioethics Committee

Source: The United Nations

The IBC committee provides the only global forum for reflection regarding bioethics, and was

created with the task of preparing an international instrument on the human genome.

Throughout the years, as science, medicine and technology develop, the IBC has issued a

series of statements regarding eugenics and gene-related practices. “Gene therapy could be

a watershed in the history of medicine and genome editing is unquestionably one of the most

promising undertakings of science for the sake of all humankind” as stated by UNESCO in a

news release on a report by the IBC. However, the IBC has always been aware of the possible

risks of these practices and has voiced its concerns in several occasions. It has stated that

“Interventions on the human genome should be admitted only for preventive, diagnostic or

therapeutic reasons and without enacting modifications for descendants”, and that the

alternative would “jeopardize the inherent and therefore equal dignity of all human beings

and renew eugenics”.

The main objective of this committee is to protect the human genome from incorrect

manipulations that may endanger the identity and physical integrity of future generations. To

this end, it recognizes the human genome as "the heritage of humanity" and declares

"contrary to human dignity" practices such as human cloning and germline intervention.

Consequently, eugenics is a topic of utter importance for the IBC, especially focusing on their

efforts to prevent a situation in which the human modification is a reality.

4

I I . HISTORY OF THE ISSUE

A. EARLY BEGINNINGS

Eugenics refers to the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human

populations, which aims to improve the population's genetic composition. Since the

application of the term by Francis Galton in 1883, it has been closely linked to Charles

Darwin’s theory of natural selection. However, the concept of selective breeding and genetic

superiority has existed since Plato’s suggestions to apply selective breeding in order to

improve general human race quality in 400 BC, and perhaps since much earlier.

Historically, humans have always aspired to improve their genetic lineage. In ancient

civilizations, small, weak or disabled children were thrown in rivers and killed, bringing shame

to their families. In Sparta, every child had to be approved by the council of elders, who

decided if he or she was fit to live or not; and in Rome, if a child was physically disabled, the

law stated that his father had the obligation to terminate his life. Moreover, the first official

form of negative eugenics was recorded in Western Europe in 506, which refers to a law

prohibiting the marriage between cousins and the birth of “inferior human beings”.

Leaping into the 19th century, after Galton’s introduction of eugenics, it became an incredibly

popular topic among scholars, biologists and social scientists, who sought to determine the

extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited, including the

predictability of intelligence and certain social behaviors. It soon became a taught discipline

in colleges, and received funding from various private and public sources for its research. It

quickly became a widely debated and polemic topic, which led to the creation of

organizations focused on increasing public support towards responsible eugenics, such as the

British Eugenics Education Society, and the American Eugenics Society, among others

worldwide.

Image 2: Logo of the second Eugenics Conference that took place in the Museum of Natural History in

New York in 1921

Soon, these organizations sought for a forum where they could discuss research and

advances. Therefore, the International Eugenics Conference was created, and as a

5

consequence of it, the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations was also

established. Three of these conferences took place in 1912, 1921 and 1932 in London and

New York. Coincidentally, the United States was the first to properly adopt eugenics policies

in the early 1900’s, followed by the United Kingdom, France and Germany. After the second

and third conferences, in which “the elimination of the unfit” was discussed, several countries

including Belgium, Sweden, Brazil, Canada and Japan started to implement an eugenics

policy of sterilizing mentally ill individuals, and thus began the rise and fall of the so called

“negative eugenics”.

B. THE RISE AND FALL OF “NEGATIVE EUGENICS” After the first International Conference of Eugenics took place in London, a Permanent

International Eugenics Committee was established. It initially dealt with and discussed

research and advances regarding the regulation of human reproduction, heredity, racial

differences and eugenics in general. However, it soon began focusing on negative eugenics

and the control of undesirable reproduction (as mentioned before this was widely discussed

in the second and third international eugenics conferences).

In 1925, it was renamed the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO) and an

American, Charles Davenport, was chosen as its president. He was a key player in directing

the organization towards the development of negative eugenics, and as its president he even

aimed to persuade international leaders into adopting negative eugenics policies by warning

them of the dangers of the reproduction of the unfit. The IFEO met every 2 years and during

the 1930’s, the German stance dominated the discussions. Therefore, it was not surprising

when, in 1932, Nazi psychiatrist and geneticist Ernst Rüdin was selected as Davenport’s

successor. By 1934, the IFEO had extended all over the world and was not limited to Europe

and North America anymore. Some of its member states included Argentina, Belgium, Cuba,

the Dutch East Indies, England, Estonia, France, Italy, Germany, South Africa, Switzerland,

and the United States (some countries such as Germany were only permitted to join after

World War I).

However, with Rüdin as president, negative eugenics began to lose popularity. As a proud

member of the Nazi party and loyal supporter of Adolf Hitler, he used eugenics to justify the

racial policies of the Fuhrer, which were based on the biological improvement of the Aryan

race. During this period of time the term “racial hygiene” was used to refer to eugenics, and

its programs were funded by wealthy members of the Nazi party and were shaped to

complement their policies. These programs were based on the USA’s programs and laws on

sterilization, and as a consequence, the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased

Offspring was enacted in 1933.

6

It called for the compulsory sterilization of any citizen who suffered from any genetic disorder,

according to the opinion of a "Genetic Health Court", and required physicians to register

every case of hereditary illness known to them. By the end of the Nazi regime, over 200

Hereditary Health Courts were created. Over 400,000 people had been sterilized, and up to

300,000 were killed under Action T4, a euthanasia program.

Image 3 - Nazi eugenics exhibition in the 1930s reads, “Sterilization is Liberation, Not a Punishment.”

Three handicapped children are also pictured with the caption “Who would want to be responsible for

this?”

Source: Facing History

Moreover, eugenics-related human experiments became more popular with the

establishment of concentration camps. Josef Mengele, a doctor in Auschwitz, supervised

several of these experiments, such as using chemical eye drops in order to try and create blue

eyes. Most of his patients ended up dying or permanently disabled. These atrocities caused

many eugenics-supporting countries to question their stances and soon the IFEO lost the

little remaining popularity it had. A year after Rüdin was chosen as president, a separatist

movement of eugenicists led by Italian sociologist Corrado Gini established the Latin

International Federation of Eugenics Organizations, which gave a space to those opposed to

the radical negative eugenics approach of the IFEO, and focused on the encouragement of

the reproduction of the “fit”. Member states included Argentina, Brazil, Catalonia, France,

Mexico, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland.

C. ANTI-EUGENICS MOVEMENTS AFTER WORLD WAR II

After the war ended, most discriminatory eugenics laws and policies were left aside, as they

were associated with Nazi Germany. This sparked a huge anti-eugenics movement, and

consequently, a series of measures were taken by the International Community. With the

adoption of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the

practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within a national, ethnical, racial or

religious group" was now considered as an international crime of genocide. Europe, after

witnessing first hand the consequences of negative eugenics, took the most radical stance,

proclaiming in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union "the prohibition of

7

eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".

However, in spite of the decline of negative eugenics and discriminatory laws, some

governments continued practicing them into the 21st century. Between 1990 and 2000, 2,000

persons were allegedly involuntarily sterilized in Peru during the government of President

Alberto Fujimori. China maintained its extreme population planning measures, which

included a one-child adopted from 1979 to 2015, as well as other eugenics-based legislation

to reduce population and manage the fertility rates of different populations. Furthermore, the

United Nations reported forced sterilizations and hysterectomies in Uzbekistan in 2007, and

throughout 2005 to 2013, nearly one-third of California prison inmates were subject to forced

sterilizations as well.

D. THE NEW “EUGENICS”

With the fall in popularity of negative eugenics due to their application by the Nazi party in

Germany, by 1940 many leaders of the eugenics movement were calling for a “new

eugenics”. This did not involve a change in purpose, but rather a change in tactics, renaming

it as genetic counseling. However, once the war was officially over and as medical technology

advanced, other forms of eugenics appeared besides genetic counseling. Some of these

included genetic screening, fetal gene manipulation, and the treatment of adults suffering

from hereditary disorders. Genetic screening became extremely popular in the late 20th

century, as it gave the possibility to parents to know the odds that their unborn child would

be affected by some combination of their hereditary backgrounds.

On the other hand, the direct manipulation of harmful genes began to be studied. This trend

of medical progress aimed to give victims of genetic diseases the possibility to live a normal

live. However, debate sprung between more traditional negative eugenicists and the new

eugenics movements as, if perfected, this method could obviate their arguments for

restricting the reproduction of people carrying harmful genes.

Moreover, between 1990 and 2003, the United States Government launched the Human

Genome Project (HGP). It was the largest scientific project funded by federal assets since the

Apollo Moon Project in 1961. The HGP worked as an international, collaborative research

program, and its objective was the complete mapping and understanding of all the genes of

human beings. Its results gave scientists all around the world the ability, for the first time, to

read nature's complete genetic blueprint to build a human being. HGP also found that certain

genomic sequences can be used to predict physical or intellectual fitness in an individual or

predilection to a serious disease, and considering that in the past several racial characteristics

have been used when defining eugenic policies, this knowledge could be potentially

dangerous. Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New

8

World” genetics as well as the “New Eugenics”, and were further developed in the 21st

century.

E. DEVELOPMENT AND ADVANCES OF MODERN EUGENICS

The first 20 years of the 21st century were essential for the development of modern eugenic

practices and embryo selection. Modern eugenics, also known as human engineering, refers

to the manipulation of genes to change or improve a human being. During this period of

time, scientists finally perfected genetic screening. It allowed doctors to diagnose certain

genetic defects in the unborn, which resulted in a substantial increase of pregnancy

terminations. The most common procedure is through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) embryo

screening, which works through the pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and involves

extracting cells from embryos at a very early stage and “reading” their genomes before

choosing which one to implant. Scientists also made it possible to accurately predict the IQ of

the embryo from genome data. The company Genomic Prediction was the first one to take it

to the market, giving parents the possibility of selecting embryos according to their

intelligence.

However, the most exciting upcoming genetic technology was not embryo selection but the

possibility to modify embryos or genetic engineering, because genetic engineering can do

something that embryo selection can’t: genetic enhancement and the possibility to choose

the medical and non-medical traits of the future baby. In a world where perfection is almost

mandatory, the market and demand for these “designer babies” started growing without

even having the finished product. Therefore, as soon as scientists and politicians discovered

that it was possible to actually create them, the race for designer babies began.

Image 4 - DNA and Genetic Modification

Source: Business Insider

Several companies in the United States were quick to lead the attempts to create these

babies. They had the advantage of not having any national legislation that restricted gene

editing, but were however limited by the fact that federal funding of germline gene editing

research is prohibited, and most American geneticists rely on government grants for their

9

research. Other highly advanced countries regarding medicine and technology had bans on

germline genetic modification, such as the European Union, Canada and Australia, which

restricted the efforts of scientists to develop these mechanisms. Moreover, the general

opinion of western citizens was not entirely in favor of the idea of human enhancement. All of

these limitations made Asia the frontrunner for human enhancement.

In 2015, China became the first country to edit the genes of human embryos using the

CRISPR-cas9 tool, with the sponsorship of the Chinese government. Being a country that is

traditionally less sensitive to public opinion and willing to reject international standards in

order to achieve their own interests gave them it a general advantage. The fact that an

increase in intelligence could potentially increase a nation’s economic growth, the

enhancement of physical traits improve the performance of athletes in international

competitions, and the alterations of violent traits could reduce crimes rates, encouraged the

Chinese government to take the leap. In 2018 two Chinese girls who had been genetically

modified as embryos by Chinese scientist He Jiankui were born. They were the first

genetically modified babies. Although they had the technology since 2018, they finally

perfected the mechanism to create designer babies in 2020.

F. THE ERA OF “DESIGNER BABIES”

Throughout the next 50 years, the designer babies industry grew at a dangerous speed. After

China’s breakthrough, Chinese private companies were quick to plant laboratories in smaller

Asian countries, and entered the industry in some major ones such as Japan and South Korea.

This led to competition with national companies after a few years.

Russia was next in figuring out how to create them and started developing their own

technology. Having a strong eugenics history, large portions of the world’s population, and

significant importance in the international sphere, it only took Russia months to catch up with

China. Gene-Tech in Pakistan was the first company in the Middle East to offer genetic

engineering, and also took designer babies to countries that were part of their regional

cooperation groups, such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh and other countries in central Asia and

South America. Moreover, the United States Government remained seemingly uninvolved

with the advances of eugenics. However, as soon as China released the possibility of having

designer babies into the market, funding for individual scientists by private companies

skyrocketed. The first ones to open the market in the US for designer babies was Genentech

or Genetic Engineering Tech, Inc., one of the leading American corporations for

biotechnology, and it was followed by several others including Genomic Prediction.

On the other hand, scientists in Europe were desperate to enter the industry. As mentioned

before, the European Union had imposed several bans on research and development of

10

eugenics. However, the market for designer babies in Europe was one of the strongest,

especially after the refugee crisis had “stained” the traditional European race. As a

consequence, despite having some of the best laboratories and resources in Europe, several

European scientists migrated to developing countries with no competition or restrictive

geneline legislation. However, the market for designer babies in developing countries was

small. Most of these scientists had settled in the poorest regions of Africa, where getting the

human resources needed to perfect the procedure was extremely cheap. However, due to

the economically weak character of the region, the market for designer babies was extremely

limited. Africa suddenly became a hotspot for cheap eugenics practices, and welcomed

mainly the middle class of most European countries who were desperate to improve the traits

of their offspring, and those who had once been refugees and didn’t want their children to be

subject to the same discrimination they had suffered throughout their lives.

Today, the percentage of enhanced humans represents 27% of the world’s population (and it

continued to grow at a high speed), mostly concentrated in people under 35. Out of all

newborns in 2069, 38.5% where enhanced. Although we have only seen the first generation

of designer babies, they show significant effects on society, and they definitely have the

potential to pose a threat to social cohesion.

I I I . ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM

A. THE INDUSTRY

The era of designer babies and their blooming industry gave many scientists the opportunity

to make millions. Many who started their careers hoping to treat sick people and prevent

suffering, are now earning millions of dollars enhancing the traits of the future generations.

Previous physical enhancements, such as those in cosmetic surgery, were intended to help

people conform to expectations created by sexism, racism and ageism, and set out by

western standards of beauty. This is why the cosmetics and plastic surgery industries were so

successful. Nevertheless, once we start designing children to look, act and be the way we

want them to, we are erasing the fundamental ethical difference between consumer

commodities and human beings.

Even before designer babies were a possibility, the eugenics industry was very profitable,

especially if you already had the traits other people wanted their offspring to have. In the egg

donor market, while ordinary working-class women got paid USD 5,000 for their eggs, tall,

blonde, and slim Ivy League students or alumni got USD 50,000. And in those times, they

couldn’t even ensure that the finished product, or baby in this case, was going to have those

traits. Now that it is possible to ensure it, imagine how much people are willing to pay.

11

Image 5 - Cartoon published in the Spectator, which portrays the modifications that can be done to the

human genome with eugenics

Source: The Spectator

During the first years in the market, gene modification was expensive even considered a

luxury for the upper classes. However, the procedure itself, after being perfected, was not.

Labs and companies decided to keep the price up to give it status, considering that gene

sequencing costs less than USD 100 and it can help ensure which embryo gives the best

possibility of implantation, making IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) cheaper as well. The whole

procedure started at about USD 50,000 and increased depending on the modifications (it

could go up to USD 300,000). However, in countries where the government itself was backing

the eugenics movement, the procedure was significantly cheaper and more affordable.

Moreover, once the labs in Africa managed by European scientists began offering the

possibility of designer babies, the price dropped significantly. It stopped being a luxury and

started selling as a product destined for the masses, pricing even as low as USD 500 in

unregistered labs, also called “black labs” making reference to a small yet growing black

market for designer babies, especially in Africa, and in Europe, where a few have started to

pop out.

B. ECONOMIC GAPS Scholar Bill McKibben once suggested that, “emerging reprogenetic technologies would be

disproportionately available to those with greater financial resources, thereby exacerbating

the gap between rich and poor and creating a ‘genetic divide’”. The creation of a new “race”

of enhanced humans has definitely had economic impacts. In general terms, countries with a

significant percentage of their workforce being enhanced are projected to increase their GDP

in the next few years, which will cause a wider division between developed and developing

countries. As most developing countries do not have the technology and know-how

necessary to carry out eugenics procedures, their percentage of enhanced individuals is very

low in comparison to that of a developed country. Enhanced humans, as previously

mentioned are smarter, medically stronger, and more productive than the unenhanced.

Hence, a country with a high percentage of them will produce more and develop more.

12

Furthermore, and at a much more national levels, job crises are emerging. Every rational

human being will usually give a job to the most capable person. However, how can a normal

individual compete with someone who is genetically designed to have a higher IQ and

enhanced capabilities? Besides that, most of the enhanced are modified to have no medical

baggage, which assures companies that if they hire them, they won’t get sick as easily.

As can be seen, the odds are in favor of enhanced humans. And with the first generation of

them entering the workforce, we are now experimenting the consequences of this. The gap

between the rich and the poor is the most noticeable one. Most ordinary people left in

countries were eugenics is common, are ordinary because their family could not afford to

make them otherwise. And now that it is more difficult for them to get a job, they are stuck in

a new type of poverty cycle. Up to now, no measures to address this issue have been taken

by the International Community.

C. SOCIAL EFFECTS: DISCRIMINATION, SEGREGATION AND MIGRATION

Maxwell J. Mehlman argued that our democratic society could be endangered if unequal

access to genetic enhancement technology created a "genobility", and the gap between the

genetically enhanced and unenhanced widens. Moreover, biologist Lee M. Silver, who

created the term "reprogenetics" and supported its applications, expressed his concern in

several occasions that these methods “could create a two-tiered society of genetically-

engineered ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ if social democratic reforms lag behind implementation of

reprogenetic technologies”. They were right.

Social inequality written into DNA. That is what happens once a society is created in which

wealthy people’s children get biological advantages over other children and the basic notions

of human equality are lost. Even using low-tech methods, such as those still used in many

Asian countries to select out girls (resulting in a global shortage of more than 100 million

women), the social consequences of allowing prejudices and competitiveness to control how

and which people get born are worrying.

Today, the social gap between the enhanced and the unenhanced is irrevocably wide. Due to

their features, the dangerous sense of superiority seen in World War II is back and in a larger

percentage of the world’s population. Not only are the unenhanced considered to be “less”,

but also they are often subject to hate crimes, and a new type of xenophobia and

discrimination has become more popular.

In countries such as China or Russia, which have adopted deeply eugenics-based legislations

and in which the own government drives enhancement, there has been a notable segregation

of the unenhanced. Not only were they seen as the lowest social group, but also

13

neighborhoods were built exclusively for the enhanced. There were special school programs

and activities available only to them. Even for sports teams and jobs the enhanced had a

genetic advantage against the unenhanced in almost every aspect of life.

With the building of new neighborhoods, a new type of segregation is born, and the

International Community fears that it will become a situation such as the one seen in the

United States during the 19th and 20th century, where there were special places people of

color could not access; or the one seen in Germany, where they separated the Jews and the

“unfit” from the rest of the population.

Moreover, the top universities of the world, including all Ivy League universities, favored the

enhanced and even offered scholarships exclusively to them. Therefore, besides having a

genetically higher IQ and a clear advantage, they had more chances of getting financial

support than those who actually needed it.

On another note, although countries such as Canada still hold restrictive bans on geneline

editing, their migration policies are more favorable for enhanced humans. Historically, their

visas have always favored those who fitted in with the profile of someone who had certain

skills or attributes that the country needed. Due to the fact that the enhanced had higher IQs

and other improved traits, they could possibly improve the economy and development of the

country.

D. CULTURAL EFFECTS

The cultural consequences of designer babies are crushing. The percentage of white and

Caucasian individuals is growing at a dangerous speed, and racial minorities in developed

countries are slowly disappearing. With the opportunity of choosing the physical traits of their

offspring, racial minorities who can afford eugenic procedures are choosing to manipulate

them so that their skin is lighter, their eyes are bigger, and their bodies are taller, therefore

resembling traditional western beauty standards.

In Asia, where eugenics is promoted by the government, lighter and fairer skin and big eyes

are the highest standards of beauty. Thus, people are choosing to give their offspring these

traits. As a consequence, classic elongated Asian eyes are each day less common among

young children. Moreover, the small African percentage that can afford the procedure has

opted to manipulate the genes of their future babies so that they don’t look “African”,

teaching them English instead of traditional and national African languages, and establishing

themselves as an upper class, thus creating a cultural divide between them and the rest.

Although most Europeans that go to Africa to do the procedure return to their homeland,

there is a very small percentage that stays. They, as well, conform that upper class while

14

contributing to the de-culturization of the region.

In the long run, and if they continue spreading at the same rate they have in the last 50 years,

eugenics practices could mean a possible homogenization of the human race and the loss of

thousands of years of culture.

IV. PAST INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS

A. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN GENOME AND HUMAN RIGHTS

In 1993, the International Bioethics Committee was entrusted with the task of preparing an

international instrument on the human genome. The Universal Declaration on the Human

Genome and Human Rights was adopted unanimously and by acclamation at UNESCO's 29th

General Conference on 11 November 1997. It was endorsed by the United Nations General

Assembly the following year. The main objective of the declaration was to protect the human

genome from being manipulated in a way that may endanger the identity and physical

integrity of future generations.

B. INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN GENETIC DATA

In October 16th, 2003, the International Bioethics Committee unanimously adopted a second

global instrument as an extension of the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome

and Human Rights. This was regarded as the International Declaration on Human Genetic

Data. The document was drafted in response to the rapidly-developing field of genetic data,

which many feared that could be used for purposes contrary to human rights and freedom. It

sets out a number of rules for the collection, use and storage of human genetic data. The

declaration covers genetic discrimination, the right not to know one’s genetic make up,

informed consent in genetics, genetic counseling, benefit sharing, anonymity of personal

genetic information, confidentiality of genetic data, population-based genetic studies, and

international solidarity in genetic research.

C. UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON BIOETHICS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights was the last global document

drafted by the International Bioethics Committee (IBC). It was adopted in 2005 to deal with

ethical issues raised by rapid changes in medicine, life sciences and technology. It lists the

human genome as part of the heritage of humanity, outlining rules that need to be observed

to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms. It stated that it was

“opportune and desirable to set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard

for human dignity and human rights and freedoms, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent

15

in bioethics”. This new declaration had a much larger capacity than the two previous ones. In

order to ensure that they were in conformity with international human rights law, its objective

was to afford a comprehensive framework of principles that would guide biomedical activities.

V. BLOC POSITIONS

A. THE ANTI EUGENICS MOVEMENT

This group is composed by all of those countries that are completely against eugenic

practices. They believe they attempt against human nature and human rights and should be

strictly regulated and even prohibited. Some of these countries include Australia, Canada and

the European Union as an institution. As stated before, many of these countries already have

laws that limit or restrict eugenic-related research and practices (not all European countries

though; countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain are more liberal in that sense).

However, just because they are against it doesn’t mean that it does not happen in their

countries.

B. THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF EUGENICS

In 2035, with the rise of designer babies, a few countries decided to reestablish the

International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. However, this time they omitted the

“organizations” part because they wanted it to be mainly government-based. It is composed

by all of those countries that support eugenic practices and incite their people to apply them.

Most of them have different government-issued eugenic programs, propaganda and offer

different advantages to the enhanced. They often discuss them in their annual forums and

share information regarding any type of advances in this type of practices. Members include

several Asian countries such as China, Russia, and Pakistan, as well as Brazil and others.

C. OTHER POSITIONS

Different positions than the ones mentioned before include countries that legally allow

eugenic practices, but do not fund them, such as the United States and other countries in

America, which has no laws that restrict the application of these practices and is home to

several of the pioneer companies in the field of biomedicine.

Another position is the one taken by African countries, in which the country itself is not

related to the practices; yet, due to the lack of regulation, many individual scientists and

companies have settled there. However, it is the African population who is suffering the

consequences.

16

*Please note that delegates are in no way forced to strictly follow these blocs. They are just recommendations that should help guide you, however. Due to the nature of this committee, I encourage you to be creative but consistent with your policy

VI. QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER (QARMAS)

1. To what extent should eugenics be regulated? Are there some practices that must be

more strictly regulated than others? Why?

2. Is it possible to develop a new international instrument for eugenic practices? How

can the International Community guarantee that, unlike the previous ones, countries

respect it? And how can we ensure the accountability of those who don’t?

3. What can the IBC do to dissipate the social consequences of designer babies?

4. What can be done to fill in the economic gap and address the job crisis between the

enhanced and the unenhanced?

5. In this new setting with eugenics becoming a stronger and more popular

phenomenon, how can we ensure that the rights of the unenhanced are respected?

VII. CLOSING REMARKS Congratulations on making it to the end of this study guide!

I hope that the information in this guide has been helpful and has made you even more

excited to be part of this committee! It is important to remark that this guide does not

pretend to be at all comprehensive. Eugenics is a very complex and broad topic and

although I have tried my best to cover most aspects of it to give you a solid overview of the

issue, each country has its own history, cases and even methods regarding eugenics. So I

urge all delegates to continue doing extensive research, and learning about the topic past

this study guide.

Moreover, I want to recall that committee wil l take place in 2070, 50 years after

“designer babies” enter the market. As previously stated, I encourage you to think outside

the box and be as creative as possible in terms of ideas, policy and solutions, but always

within the line of reality and feasibility. Throughout the guide I have described the world’s

situation in 2070 as detailed as I could. However, it was impossible for me to describe

absolutely everything that was happening. So I ask you once again, please use your creativity

when picturing reality 51 years from now.

Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions, comments or concerns

regarding committee or the topic. I can’t wait to meet you all in a few weeks. Until then, good

luck!

17

VIII. CONFERENCE PREPARATION

A. RESEARCH

The success of your experience in VCSPMUN will depend heavily on how much preparation

you put in before the conference actually begins. Although research may not seem like the

most fun or exciting activity leading up to a conference, if you put in the necessary effort, it

will definitely pay off during the conference. You will be more knowledgeable, more

prepared, and more confident to deal with whatever comes your way. As you do your

research, you may want to keep a page of notes on key facts, figures, policies and other

important information. Bring a copy of your notes to the conference in order to use them as a

reference (bear in mind that electronic devices are not allowed during committee sessions).

B. POSITION PAPERS

A Position Paper is a policy statement in which delegates analyze and present their country’s

view on the issue being discussed, also focusing on past national and international actions in

order to propose innovative but viable solutions. Your position paper should always include a

heading with the title (“Position Paper”), your delegation (the country you are representing),

your committee (full name), the topic you are discussing (as stated in your study guide), your

full name and the name of your school. Additionally, a standard position paper is comprised

of three paragraphs:

• Your first paragraph should include a brief introduction to the topic, always

connecting the issue to your country. Try to include statistics, data and catchy phrases

that may apply. Always bear in mind that you should be focusing on answering the

question “Why is the issue relevant to my country?” and explain your country’s

situation and policy in relation to the issue.

• Your second paragraph should include a brief summary of past UN action related to

the issue being discussed, always expressing the opinion of your country in relation to

the measures that you are mentioning. Try to focus on which specific actions have had

an impact on your country, and explain how you believe that these measures can be

improved.

• Your third paragraph should focus on proposing solutions, always according to your

country’s policy. Try to be creative and propose original ideas that will help other

delegates (and your dais) to remember your contribution to the debate. Finally, do not

forget to write a strong closing sentence.

Each delegation is responsible for submitting a Position Paper to ibc.vcspmun@prideperu.org

by Tuesday, May 28th (11:59 pm). The general format of Position Papers is one page long,

18

single-spaced, with size 11 Times New Roman font. Please make sure to cite every source

that you use in your Position Paper.

C. RULES OF PROCEDURE

The Rules of Procedure will guide a delegate’s participation throughout the debate. They

contain the rules governing the debate, speeches, points and documents, as well as the rules

governing the vote. The Rules of Procedure have been sent to all delegations via e-mail.

Nevertheless, delegates shall bear in mind that the Secretariat and the Committee Directors

may provide variations to these rules.

D. WRITING RESOLUTIONS

The purpose of the debate, as stated in our philosophy, is to encourage you to develop

comprehensive and pragmatic solutions to the topic being discussed. These solutions should

be embodied in a document called a resolution. The process of drafting a resolution consists

of two main written stages: the Working Paper and the Draft Resolution. Working Papers are

a point of reference for discussion in committee that contain concrete ideas on the topic

under discussion. They do not require a specific format. In contrast, Draft Resolutions are a

formal document in which the committee determines the actions to be taken in order to solve

the problems under discussion. They have a specific format and must include a certain

number of signatories (this will be defined by the dais at the start of the debate).

IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ball, P. (2017, January 08). Designer babies: An ethical horror waiting to happen? Retrieved

from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/08/designer-babies-ethical-horror-

waiting-to-happen

Ball, P. (2018, November 19). Super-smart designer babies could be on offer soon. But is that

ethical? | Philip Ball. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/designer-babies-ethical-genetic-

selection-intelligence

Center for Genetics and Society (2019). Eugenics. Retrieved from

https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/topics/eugenics

Do You Fear Eugenics? China Does Not, and that's a Problem - interview with Chad White.

Retrieved from https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/pellissier20150622

19

Douthat, R. (2012, June 09). Eugenics, Past and Future. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/douthat-eugenics-past-and-future.html

Editors, H. (2017, November 15). Eugenics. Retrieved from

https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics

Editors, WHO. (2010, December 08). Genetic counselling services. Retrieved from

https://www.who.int/genomics/professionals/counselling/en/

Facing History (2019). Breeding the New German "Race". Retrieved from

https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-5/breeding-new-

german-race

Geib, C. (2017, August 09). Expert Argues That Gene Editing Will Widen Economic Class

Gap. Retrieved from https://futurism.com/expert-argues-that-gene-editing-will-widen-

economic-class-gap

Kevles, D. J. (1999, August 14). Eugenics and human rights. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127045/

King, D. (2017, August 04). Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer

eugenics | David King. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/04/editing-human-genome-

consumer-eugenics-designer-babies

Jackson, E. (2018, July 18). Beware the unintended consequences of genome editing.

Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/283500a6-89a6-11e8-affd-da9960227309

Jones, S. (2004, April 07). EU law on eugenics attacks our freedom. Retrieved from

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3321686/EU-law-on-eugenics-

attacks-our-freedom.html

Leroi, A. M. (2006, December). The future of neo-eugenics. Now that many people approve

the elimination of certain genetically defective fetuses, is society closer to screening all

fetuses for all known mutations? Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1794693/

Loria, K. (2018, July 19). Genetically modified 'designer babies' might be ok, according to a

top ethics council. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com.au/designer-babes-made-

by-editing-embryos-ethics-2018-7

20

Nancy E Hansen; Heidi L Janz; Dick J Sobsey (2018, December). 21st century eugenics?.

Retrieved from https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61889-

9/fulltext

National Human Genome Research Institute (2018, October 28). What is the Human Genome

Project?. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What

Nelson, F. (2016, April 11). The return of eugenics. Retrieved from

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/the-return-of-eugenics/

Norrgard, K. (2008) Human testing, the eugenics movement, and IRBs. Nature Education.

Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/human-testing-the-eugenics-

movement-and-irbs-724

Rich, M., & Inoue, M. (2019, April 25). Japan to Compensate Forcibly Sterilized Patients,

Decades After the Fact. Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/world/asia/japan-sterilization-eugenics-

compensation.html

Schaefer, G. O., & Singapore, N. U. (2016, August 08). Future - China may be the future of

genetic enhancement. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160804-china-

may-be-the-future-of-genetic-enhancement

Smith, H., & Smith, H. (2017, January 12). How Eugenics Legislated Sterilization Around the

World. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@chsmithiii/how-eugenics-legislated-sterilization-

around-the-world-eb5a226d4641

The Economist. (1997, August 28). Here, of all places. Retrieved from

https://www.economist.com/europe/1997/08/28/here-of-all-places

UNESCO. (n.d.). International Declaration on Human Genetic Data. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/human-genetic-

data/

UNESCO. (n.d.). Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-

human-rights/

United Nations (2015, October 5)UN panel warns against 'designer babies' and eugenics in

21

'editing' of human DNA | UN News. Retrieved from

https://news.un.org/en/story/2015/10/511732-un-panel-warns-against-designer-babies-and-

eugenics-editing-human-dna

Wertz, D. (1998). Eugenics is alive and well: A survey of genetic professionals around the

world. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15168676

Wilson, P. K. (2019, February 11). Eugenics. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics

Wilson, R. A. (2019, May 10). Eugenics today: Where eugenic sterilisation continues now –

Robert A Wilson | Aeon Essays. Retrieved from https://aeon.co/essays/eugenics-today-where-

eugenic-sterilisation-continues-now

X. DISCLAIMER This background guide has been created by its authors for Promotora Internacional de

Debate (PRIDE Perú) and meant to be used exclusively for Villa Caritas & San Pedro Model

United Nations (VCSPMUN) 2019. The authors of this background guide claim no copyright

or any kind of intellectual property or legal right for the content of this document. However,

this document may not be distributed or reproduced without the express written consent of

its authors, unless used exclusively for educational purposes.