In my opinion, there is a fundamental difference between the eugenics of the past and current biotechnology, even if there is a certain question of pluralism of values. In this essay I will discuss my views on how the eugenics of the past has cast a shadow of horror in people's lives and how the current era of biotechnology has made society remember the horrors of the past, along with the methods that should be adapted to this problem. ensure that the morally wrong practices of the past are not repeated in today's age of biotechnology. To differentiate old eugenics and current biotechnology, it is necessary to briefly explain the two terms. Eugenics, overall, is the science of improving the human genetic makeup for the betterment of the general population and future generations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Old eugenics aimed at selective breeding among the best candidates with the best genes, presumably those with a higher IQ and without "unwanted" diseases, to eliminate undesirable traits in offspring, which led to forced segregation and sterilization of the mass population. In the final years of the biotech revolution, there are fears that the central idea of ​​human genetic engineering—the ability to exclude certain types of characteristics and conditions from existing people and future generations and manipulate genes to add desirable attributes—has manifested itself from the beginning. eugenics movement. The movement dates back to the late 1980s and was quite global and manipulative. The idea of ​​eugenics was to find a global solution to emerging pathological problems that apparently caused the degeneration of the gene pool. The countries that strongly took part in and actively supported eugenics before the Nazi takeover were Finland, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Russia, China, Argentina, France, Japan, Mexico, Italy and Sweden, and because of the way it was prosecuted, it left a long-term terrifying fear for society. (Lotz, M. 2018) During World War II, in the Nazi concentration camps of Auschwitz, doctors willingly participated in scientific investigations and experiments that led to mass suffering and the killing of non-consenting people. The so-called doctors killed weak people with phenol injections, supervised the deaths of contagious people in gas chambers, and were even instructed on how to burn the bodies altogether. They atrociously slaughtered the so-called unfit and decided who could not live. and who could meet Auschwitz's own labor needs (2). Even the children were not spared. The Germans selected the fit and unfit and instructed care facilities to kill them to ensure the integrity of the gene pool. What has changed over the years is that the new era of biotechnology takes into account people's consent, which is a very important factor in any kind of scientific experiment or treatment and which was missing in the old eugenics. In today's age, everyone in society is given the choice if they want to be genetically tested and no one is forced into any kind of harsh testing or sterilization based on the results. While in the past individuals had no choice but to undergo testing and were brutally singled out as “unhealthy” and intervention approaches were adopted that prevented them from reproducing at all, preventing their freedom to make decisions. At that time, reproduction was not considered a private matter, but rather a social consequence.(1) My alternative argument, in which there is no fundamental difference between old eugenics and current biotechnology, would be the underlying goal of improving the overall gene pool and the betterment of humanity for both existing people and the future generation. This includes modern genetic screening techniques such as preimplantation diagnosis and in vitro fertilization that help prospective parents decide which embryo is genetically healthy and whether to have the baby or not. This process of eliminating embryos with genetic defects is neither easy nor cheap, and it is not possible for everyone in society to perform prenatal genetic testing. This will create a barrier between people who have undergone genetic testing and those who do not have the opportunity or ability and perhaps end up having a child with an undesirable trait; this leads once again to a eugenics movement of the past. I will stand firm on my position and argue against the alternative view, even though the goal of past eugenics and current biotechnology are more or less similar in terms of improving the quality of life. This, in fact, could lead to a slippery slope. Although this theory has limitations, it gives prospective parents enough choice whether or not they want prenatal genetic testing for the betterment of their unborn child. Parents have the right to make decisions to have a healthy child without disabilities (3). It is obvious that families will not want their children to have Down syndrome or Tay-Sachs. Most parents will want to have the option of genetic analysis of embryos to eliminate certain disabilities or diseases and have healthy children. While others may want children with more intellectual abilities and more athletic children. A report by Benedikt Härlin recognized in the European Parliament states that there is increased pressure for individual genetic testing to ensure that society's future children are given the best of what they can get (3). On the other hand, modern biotechnology is much more advanced than simple genetic tests and research and experiments conducted, and the technologies used are all very acceptable from an ethical and moral point of view. Today, researchers have developed several sophisticated scientific techniques in the field of genetic medicine bound by ethical principles. If an individual has a hereditary disease and has the option of having prenatal genetic diagnosis to find out if their future child is at risk of inheriting the trait, it can be very liberating for prospective parents (3). Buchanan et al. The reading highlights five propositions about where eugenics went wrong. First, it has been argued that eugenics focused primarily on replacement rather than therapy (1). Eugenics aimed at selective breeding to improve humanity instead of improving existing people, helping people, providing preventive therapies to sick people. Eugenics authorities failed to appreciate diversity and imposed on people with certain traits the fear of giving birth to an unfit or disabled being. child. People with epilepsy, alcoholism, prostitution, pauperism, and crime were believed to have inherited the defective genes from their families (1). Such misjudgments existed during the eugenics of the past. We now have sufficient knowledge of genetics to eliminate such misjudgments of the bygone era. Second, Buchanan et al. wonders what criteria eugenicists have established for the best human trait in such a complex society, where everyone has different characteristics. The eugenicists' idea of ​​human perfection was questionable..