"the article and thus implying the research itself is I would aver boardering on eugenics... "

Um...why?
This is the abstract of the actual paper (I'm at home right now so I can't access the full text):

"Postmating Sexual Selection Favors Males That Sire Offspring with Low Fitness
Trine Bilde, Anne Foged, Nadia Schilling, Göran Arnqvist

Despite the costs of mating, females of most taxa mate with multiple males. Polyandrous females are hypothesized to gain genetic benefits for their offspring, but this assumes paternity bias favoring male genotypes that enhance offspring viability. We determined net male genetic effects on female and offspring fitness in a seed beetle and then tested whether fertilization success was biased in favor of high-quality male genotypes in double mating experiments. Contrary to expectations, high-quality male genotypes consistently had a lower postmating fertilization success in two independent assays. Our results imply that sexually antagonistic adaptations have a major and unappreciated influence on male postmating fertilization success. Such genetic variation renders indirect genetic benefits an unlikely driver of the evolution of polyandry."


The point the paper is making is that there is a conflict of interests between the male and female--it is in the females interests to select the sperm she wants to fertilize her eggs to maximize their fitness and therefore her own, and it is in the male's interests to have his sperm fertilize the eggs regardless of whether or not it maximizes the fitness of the offspring. In the case of these beetles, the males appear to have the upper hand in the "arms race" at this time. Personally I think the authors have overstated their conclusion. The evolution of polyandry is likely to involve a complex and dynamic shifting adaptive landscape in which male fitness, female fitness, and sexual parasites are all concerned. No snapshot of a system at a single moment in time is likely to resolve that satisfactorily.