Manufactured Consent
- Create Society
- Jul 9
- 2 min read
Reproductive Control, Genetic Therapies, and the Legacy of Power: A Social Problem Rooted in History
The intersection of sickle cell anemia gene therapies, Bill Gates’ global health investments, and his family’s historical ties to Planned Parenthood reveals a deeper and troubling social problem: the enduring pattern of reproductive control over Afro-Indigenous and marginalized communities under the guise of health equity.
Current gene therapies for sickle cell anemia, such as CRISPR-based treatments, carry a significant risk of permanent infertility, especially in young women. This infertility is not a direct result of the gene editing itself, but rather the chemotherapy-based conditioning required for the treatment to work. While these therapies offer hope for a cure, they also come with unspoken reproductive trade-offs—a fact that becomes more ethically complex given who these therapies are targeting: primarily Afro-Indigenous patients in Africa and the diaspora.
What raises further concern is that Bill Gates and his foundation are major funders of these therapies, and have also been deeply involved in global population control initiatives, particularly through the promotion of voluntary family planning in the Global South. While this advocacy emphasizes choice and access, it must be viewed in the context of a broader philanthropic agenda that has long focused on reducing population growth in the world’s poorest—and often most culturally rich—regions.
Adding to this complexity is the Gates family's historical connection to Planned Parenthood. Bill Gates’ father, William H. Gates Sr., served as a leader in the organization, which has a documented history of entanglement with eugenics and selective breeding ideologies. While Planned Parenthood today emphasizes reproductive rights, its early roots included efforts to control the reproduction of the poor, disabled, and people of color. This legacy, combined with Gates Foundation’s influence over biotech solutions, creates a troubling echo: new technologies that may unintentionally sterilize, funded by those whose lineage and institutions have historically supported reproductive management of marginalized people.
The social problem, then, is not simply about unintended side effects. It is about power and consent. Who decides what trade-offs are acceptable? Are communities being told the full risks of these therapies? Are they shaping the solutions being pushed on them, or are they passive recipients of "help" from wealthy elites with complex agendas?
This is especially urgent in African countries, where gene drives in mosquitoes and gene therapies in humans are being trialed side-by-side—both in the name of eradicating malaria and sickle cell anemia. But without community ownership, ethical oversight, and historical reckoning, these interventions risk becoming a new chapter in the same old story: bioengineering for population control, dressed as humanitarian aid.
To truly serve justice, any solution to sickle cell anemia must be transparent, inclusive, and locally governed. That includes:
Honest, culturally competent consent protocols
Full disclosure of fertility risks
Leadership from affected communities in all phases of research and deployment
An end to the top-down, philanthropic savior model of global health
Otherwise, the promise of genetic healing may come at the cost of reproductive freedom, and once again, Afro-Indigenous bodies will bear the burden of someone else’s vision for a better world.
- Create Society
Comments