because it could be used to describe

a number of different things.

So one way to think about eugenics

is just as selective breeding

or sort of control over reproduction.

So, if we think about involuntary sterilization

in Virginia in the 1920s,

that's saying there's better people,

there's worse people;

it's on the basis of something "genetic" about them,

and we're gonna allocate freedoms

on the basis of that hierarchy.

Some people have reproductive autonomy:

they get to choose to have children,

but other people don't-

they are involuntarily sterilized.

So it's this control of reproduction that's coercive,

and is based on this idea, this hierarchy of people.

The predominant response to the eugenic perspective

has been what I call 'Genome blindness.'

And that's really the idea

that we should avoid studying

or talking about, scientifically or politically,

biological or genetic differences between people.

We can't use any genetic information

to slot people into eugenic hierarchy

if there are no genetic differences

or if we insist, they don't matter.

If you ask the average American

how much do you think genes influence

your intelligence or personality

or risk for mental illness,

their answer is almost never "zero."

So if people already think that genes make a difference

for outcomes that they care about,

if the only people that are talking

about that are the most extreme,

sometimes hate-filled voices,

that is a problem.

I really worry that too much of the conversation

is focused right now on the ethics

of knowledge production,

and not enough on the brass tacks

of legislation and policy at the state-by-state level.

I have a colleague and friend here

at the University of Texas

who wrote a fascinating book called

"Predict and Surveil."

She embedded herself with the LA Police Department

for several years and looked

how they saw predictive policing,

algorithms, and data aggregation

in order to police, and I would say,

over-police some communities.

And a lot of the data that they're using

comes from proprietary software

that's provided by for-profit companies.

When people think about dystopian scenarios,

I actually worry less about the overt white nationalists

and more about people who know

they can make money using genetic information.

So the challenge then is, how do we identify

genetic differences between people,

even genetic differences that might have a relationship

to outcomes we care about socially?

So something like intelligence

or education or impulsivity,

without using them or interpreting them eugenically.

When we think about our own intimate relationships,

we can separate what makes someone valuable,

worthy of freedom, worthy of resources,

worthy of consideration of welfare,

from what does our capitalist economy currently value.

And I think that's the distinction

that we also need to draw

between observing genetic differences

versus using them eugenically.