Inb4, yes, actual science, the scientific method which dethroned the "experts", which ought to be open to everyone to test and retest your hypotheses is great.
Even in that case however, remember that science can never tell you what you should do, only what you could.
After all, the scientists 100 years ago all noticed that you could do eugenics, the scientific minded progressives all supporting it. Including, by the way, John Maynard Keynes whos economic system modern governments apply. Head of the British Eugenics Society from 1933 to 1944, in 1946 still remarking that eugenics is the most important branch of sociology.
Churchill approved it, the Americans did it, so did the Canadians, the danish, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the swedes, Iceland, lativa, the soviets, Prussia. Most of those places were democratic, often social democracies.
Yes, it "works" in crops and animals, and sure enough, human genetics work much the same.
But just because we could does not mean we should.
Furthermore, if there is resistance which you can expect in humans, then it might not work as well (which leads some to suggest that we are still doing it, we are just doing it by criminalizing dissent and intentionally pissing people off, even if you live, you do not tend to procreate in prison, do you? Breeding only obedient people would be a useful first step, one might assume. Of course, in that case your goal can not be intelligence or the like, intelligent people are typically not just going to listen, they need to know. And if you defer everything to authorities, why would you need to be physically fit, either?).
That is another problem, yes, maybe it would work if you could control people well enough, but what consequences are there outside of the narrow field of genetics which may either be themselves undesirable or in fact impede your eugenics program?
In all of those cases of course, it was mandated by the state, usually by forced sterilization or the like.
One could argue that we all engage in eugenics if we chose who we will have a child with - and possibly in the future refine the genetics with technology. The crucial difference here of course is in who chooses, in the case of choosing a partner the individuals involved do.
And there are people that do suggest withholding sex from people is itself a form of discrimination that needs to be abolished - we call that rape.
And there are many such instances in history of "science" being used to justify forcing things on people. It is not about whether you are factually correct, it is still morally wrong to force your will onto people. And opposing forced sterilization is not misinformation just because such a program, if followed properly, would work.