Two independent, detailed reviews of Agar's 2004 book Liberal Eugenics never mention Nozick or the 'genetic supermarket' anywhere in their summaries of its argument

nicholas-agarrobert-nozickliberal-eugenicsgenetic-supermarketcitation-verificationhistoriographyunverified-lineage

Michael Hauskeller's review of Nicholas Agar's Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2005) walks through the book's argumentative structure in detail — the "method of moral images," the "therapy," "nature," and "nurture" comparison images, Agar's stated "Nature Principle" and "Nurture Principle," the deafness case, and the precautionary-principle discussion — without mentioning Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, or "genetic supermarket" once. David Pearce's independently written 2009 critical review of the same book, covering different material (the "monism" argument, the SS/Nazi comparison, hedonic- treadmill objections), is likewise silent on Nozick throughout.

Neither review is a bibliography audit, and the absence of a name from a review's summary does not prove its absence from a footnote in the underlying book — a review can skip a passing citation without failing its own purpose. But two reviewers, working independently on different material, each producing a chapter-by-chapter account of the book's argument, both finding nothing to say about a connection to one of the best-known works in 20th-century political philosophy, is evidence against a documented engagement, not merely evidence of its absence from one account. Routed to question-verify-agar-1998-cites-nozick-directly, which a direct read of Agar's own text would resolve conclusively either way.