I don’t think it’s right for public policy to be based on bad science, that is my instinct. But when I think about it, who has the right to determine whether a science is moral or good? Certainly I think eugenics is an immoral science, but if the public at large thinks otherwise do I have the right to storm the Capitol? This then begs the question as to whether public policy should be based on science at all, and I tend to think the answer is no. Rather, public policy ought to be based on morals (or ethics, but I consider ethics to be a subset of morals while you use a different definition).
And then of course I think, maybe there is no such thing as a moral or immoral science. Voyager must have meant “invalid” when writing “bad”. To this I respond that not all forms of eugenics are scientifically invalid. Consider the forced sterilization of those positively identified with Huntington’s disease along with mandatory screening for their immediate family. According to Wikipedia up to 10% of people with Huntington’s disease acquired it from a new mutation, the other 90% would inherit the disease. As a matter of science, I hypothesize that forced sterilization and mandatory screening would, over time, reduce the number of people with the disease.
Of course, I think such a scheme is wildly unethical. But why? Because people have the right to reproduce, the right to privacy, and besides, people can live a full and happy life without ever noticing they have the disease. But why do people have those rights?
~Max