Jonathan Glover, What Sort of People Should There Be? New York: Penguin, 1984.

     Glover adopts a utilitarian approach and places no limits on the applications of human genetic engineering. He allows enhancements on the grounds that humans need improvement. The history of humans in the twentieth century, Glover proposes, reflects a warlike tendency that needs to be altered.
     Glover's failure to place any restraints on human genetic engineering leaves unaddressed the fears that genetic engineering may open a Pandora's box that is better left closed. This failure is tied to Glover's utilitarian principles. Glover advocates gathering data and, once the data are in, judging the effects of human genetic engineering--much as the impact of nuclear waste and armaments has been addressed after data concerning their effects have been gathered. A prohibition of all forms of human genetic engineering would preclude any data gathering and any potential benefits. Hence, Glover argues, the work should go forward and consequences should be assessed in response to each development.
     A theoretical framework that omits widespread fears or common intuitions surrounding human genetic engineering is, I suggest, inadequate for the task of grounding genetic obligations to future generations. A shared notion of the good is necessary for Glover's defense of enhancements, but Glover is unable to provide a framework for shared purpose or a shared good in his obligation theory. Glover also fails to distinguish environmental from genetic obligations, to distinguish an obligation to future populations from obligations to future individuals, and he fails to provide an adequate place for partiality toward one's child.