The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children
Abstract
Eugenic selection of embryos is now possible by employing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). While PGD is currently being employed for the purposes of detecting chromosomal abnormalities or inherited genetic abnormalities, it could in principle be used to test any genetic trait such as hair colour or eye colour. Genetic research is rapidly progressing into the genetic basis of complex traits like intelligence and a gene has been identified for criminal behaviour in one family. Once the decision to have IVF is made, PGD has few ‘costs’ to couples, and people would be more inclined to use it to select less serious medical traits, such as a lower risk of developing Alzheimer Disease, or even for non‐medical traits. PGD has already been used to select embryos of a desired gender in the absence of any history of sex‐linked genetic disease. I will argue that: (1) some non‐disease genes affect the likelihood of us leading the best life; (2) we have a reason to use information which is available about such genes in our reproductive decision‐making; (3) couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information, including information about non‐disease genes. I will also argue that we should allow selection for non‐disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality. I will focus on genes for intelligence and sex selection. I will defend a principle which I call Procreative Beneficence: couples (or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as the others, based on the relevant, available information.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Ormond, K. E., Mortlock, D. P., Scholes, D. T., Bombard, Y., Brody, L. C., Faucett, W. A., Garrison, N. A., Hercher, L., Isasi, R., Middleton, A., et al. (2017) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012 · Cited by 252
In search of biomarkers for autism: scientific, social and ethical challenges
Walsh, P., Elsabbagh, M., Bolton, P., & Singh, I. (2011) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn3113 · Cited by 249
Screening Human Embryos for Polygenic Traits Has Limited Utility
Karavani, E., Zuk, O., Zeevi, D., Barzilai, N., Stefanis, N. C., Hatzimanolis, A., Smyrnis, N., Avramopoulos, D., Kruglyak, L., Atzmon, G., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2019.10.033 · Cited by 111
Flopping, Klapping and Gene Doping
van Hilvoorde, I., Vos, R., & de Wert, G. (2007) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312706063784 · Cited by 43
Human Germline Genome Editing: On the Nature of Our Reasons to Genome Edit
Sparrow, R. (2022) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2021.1907480 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Savulescu, J.
- Venue
- Bioethics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-10
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 413-426
- ISSN
- 0269-9702 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8519
- OpenAlex
- W2117217687
- Cited by
- 871
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-8519.00251
- The paper
- Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children. Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00251
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.