Will science one day be able to predict which individuals will turn to a life of crime? That is one of the more fascinating asides to the furor surrounding President Clinton's embattled nominee for U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Henry Foster Jr.
Dr. Foster was attacked by conservatives primarily for having performed abortions during his career. But in addition to that hot-button issue, opponents also seized on reports that, early in his practice, Dr. Foster also participated in a program that sterilized severely mentally retarded women.
Such programs were once common as a way of preventing the births of what were considered potential future criminals. Sterilization became accepted practice in the 1930s, when medical opinion adopted the eugenics movement's view that certain mental illnesses and criminal traits were inherited.
Eugenics as a science was discredited in the 1960s -- and ob-gyns like Dr. Foster ceased performing sterilizations at that time. But the notion of a link between criminal behavior and heredity lingered on. Recently some investigators, spurred by advances in molecular biology and genetics, again have begun to suggest the day may not be far off when science will be able to identify a biological propensity for violent crime.
Such a prospect represents a double-edged sword, however. Proponents argue that early identification of people who are biologically prone to violence could cut the crime rate significantly, since the majority of crime is commited by a tiny minority of habitual offenders. In this view, the traditional concept of justice based on guilt and punishment should be replaced by a "medical model" based on prevention, diagnosis and treatment.
But skeptics worry such an approach understates the enormous complexity of human behavior. A society desperate to reduce crime might find the temptation to make premature or inappropriate use of such knowledge irresistible, they fear, leading to the kinds of abuses epitomized by the compulsory sterilization programs of the 1930s.
Such ethical considerations are certain to become even more troublesome as our knowledge advances. If crime has a biological basis, for example, is society justified in compelling convicted felons to undergo treatment? Should the concept of justice be replaced by a model based on medical disability? With crime the issue Americans identify as the country's No. 1 problem such questions, virtually unthinkable only a few years ago, may soon occupy the center of public debate.