Sir Francis Galton, a renowned British scientist, made a considerable contribution to the multiple branches of science. While some of his works still serve as a basis for contemporary science, like in the field of statistics, he is most often credited for laying out the basis of eugenics – a discipline that aims at improving the qualities of humanity using artificial selection. While some of his core implications are debatable or disproven today, the methods he developed to aid the research process are recognized as valid in the fields of contemporary meteorology, historiometry, behavioral genetics, and statistics.
After reading On the Origin of Species, Galton was fascinated with the implications of the selection process (Hunt, 2007). Thus, Galton focused his studies on the hereditary nature of traits in human beings. This has subsequently led to the creation of the eugenics – a discipline that focused on the improvement of the human qualities by applying the breeding techniques the humanity had already been familiar with.
However, unlike animal breeding, which focused largely on the physical characteristics which could be industrially and commercially valuable, Galton was primarily interested in the intellectual properties and their inheritance. He decided to start the research by reviewing the existing information by applying the statistical analysis to the data he could obtain by assessing what he termed “eminent individuals” – people with extraordinary abilities or recognized achievements in the society of the time.
Essentially, he formed the basis of historiometry – statistical study of the historical data. His findings showed that the number of eminent individuals was the highest among the close relatives and gradually decreased from there. Galton interpreted it as a proof of his hypothesis that intelligence and talent were inherent (his conclusion was later criticized, primarily for the flawed sampling methods, now known as the Galton’s problem).
At the time, Galton’s findings became a turning point in nature versus nurture debate. His interpretation meant that any social status was primarily of genetic origin, which contrasted the predominant opinion that society was largely responsible for the outcome (Goldhaber, 2012). Thus, the results acquired by Galton supported the “nature” side of the debate.
In his paper, Hereditary Talent and Character, Galton proposed a concept of a society where the government would encourage marriages that were beneficial to the creation of the highly intelligent offspring by monetary incentives (Galton, 1865). The benefit of marriage in such a society could be calculated based on the public examination which would presumably include the assessment of achievements as well as physical traits.
Despite the appealing idea of creating a better society, Galton’s concept is flawed. First, selective breeding poses the same dangers as the interbreeding: the lack of biodiversity, which results in poor health of the offspring (Garland-Thomson, 2015). While this can be circumvented by careful planning, an even larger obstacle is the measurement of the prerequisites required for selection. While the physical traits that are key factors in animal breeding are easily measured and analyzed, the same cannot be said about human intelligence, let alone the value to society or eminence, which is highly subjective.
To sum up, Galton’s findings and core theories of inherent intelligence and eminence are largely outdated today. At the same time, the methods he used to support his research, as well as some intermediary conclusions made in the process, have shaped some of the modern sciences and remain influential to this time.
References
Hunt, M. (2007). The story of psychology. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Guanine, Thymine, Adenine, and Cytosine; no matter what order they appear in, these are the elements of change in the human body that make every one of us unique, yet similar in so many ways. As humans, we have always been interested in genetics. Merriam-Webster defines genetics as the scientific study of how genes control the characteristics of plants and animals. That is precisely what we have been trying to do for the last hundred years or so.
Having control of our genes was thought to be a way to make our society prevail against any unwanted characteristics. Around 1920, this idea became popularized in the form of eugenics. The eugenics movement resulted in the deaths and sterilizations of thousands of people. Today, the scientific community has started to experiment with genetics again through gene therapy. The eugenics movement has positively influenced gene therapy. The mistakes made during the movement have taught scientists to be more careful when dealing with something so delicate as genetics.
Francis Galton was the first person to call his idea eugenics. His idea of eugenics did not start as severely as it ended. It was originally supposed to improve humanity through childbirth. Of the two types of genetics, positive and negative, Galtonian eugenics was labeled positive. Unlike negative eugenics, whose goal is to eliminate people with unwanted =characteristics, positive simply encouraged healthier people to reproduce as much as they could.
Positive eugenics was meant to increase the population of healthy people (those with likable characteristics). Encouraging healthy people to have more children was not an issue. The issue was what constituted healthy vs. unhealthy(unhealthy was usually called degenerate). Those considered degenerate were sometimes what we would nowadays consider normal. Simple things such as masturbation, sexual promiscuity, mental illness, epilepsy, crime, and “idiocy” would instantly label a person degenerate.
How would society handle these degenerate people so that the majority of the population would be ‘normal’? The answer was either to kill them or take away their ability to have more degenerate babies. The Model Law, created by Harry Laughlin, was published in 1914 and allowed eugenical sterilization. Ten years later, approximately three thousand people were sterilized, legally, and without their consent, due to the Model Law. Those who could be sterilized included anyone in a public institution and those who were deaf, deformed, blind, dependent on others, orphans, homeless, tramps, and the feebleminded. It was thought that these unwanted traits were passed on genetically. So, if someone was deaf or deformed, it was thought that his or her children would be as well.
Carrie Buck took her case up to the United States Supreme Court. The case of Buck v. Bell took place in 1927. Carrie was the first person chosen for sterilization. She was a seventeen-year-old girl whose mother was an asylum resident (for feeblemindedness and epilepsy). Carrie was raped and impregnated by one of her foster parents’ family members. Carrie’s daughter was labeled ‘abnormal’ and ‘below average,’ despite being on the honor roll in her elementary school.
No matter how hard the case was fought, Carrie lost and was ultimately sterilized. This was just one example of the harsh methods used during the eugenics movement. People had virtually no say in what happened to them or their bodies. Thousands were both forced into mental asylums and sterilized against their will; some were even euthanized. Although lethal gas chambers were suggested, the euthanizations would usually take place in individual mental institutions done by doctors, with no consequences.
The severe methods used during eugenics started before the Holocaust and continued during the start of it. A few American companies like TheRockefeller Foundation gave funds to the German eugenics program and even the program Josef Mengele was apart of before Auschwitz. American money helped fund the devastation that was the Holocaust. Similar to the German ideal for what was ‘superior’, American eugenicists sought out people with blond hair, blue eyes, and pale skin. Sterilizing anyone who was not of this aesthetic would eventually cause the population to only be filled with those who had likable characteristics, or at least that was the goal. Purposefully or not, American ideals for ethnic cleansing had a role in paving the way, at least partially, for the Holocaust.
In 1942, eugenics was still being practiced, allowing thirteen states to create laws that permitted the sterilization of any criminal. Involuntary sterilizations continued in the 1970s by thirty-three states. At the end of the eugenics movement, more than sixty thousand Americans were forcibly but legally sterilized.
Gene therapy, or what some would call ‘modern-day eugenics,’ is quite different from eugenics. There are two huge differences between eugenics and gene therapy: consent and goal. Eugenics was a hostile attempt at ‘purifying’ society through severe and forced methods. Nobody was given a choice for what was done to their body. Gene therapy is used to try and cure diseases, disabilities, and disorders that are legitimately harming people, and gene therapy is never used forcibly. All the trials for gene therapy studies are on a volunteer basis.
There are only two known ways to carry out gene therapy. The first is through insertion. Normal genes are put in place of somatic and/or germ cells. Somatic cells (46 chromosomes) are body cells, which make up the bones, organs, connective tissue, and blood of the human body. Germ cells (23 chromosomes) are in charge of producing gametes, otherwise known as reproductive cells (sperm and eggs). Normal cells that occur naturally in the body are duplicated, then inserted into the patient’s cells.
The normal cells used can come from either an animal, human donor, or are created artificially. The second type of gene therapy is gene surgery. Gene surgery is more complex, and not as much information has been collected in comparison to inserting gene therapy. In gene surgery, certain genes can be deactivated, or genes can be inserted into the gametes to prevent certain disorders. Gene surgery is the more productive way to prevent disease, while gene therapy focuses its attention on treating diseases already present.
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), which is a form of gene surgery, is something that is becoming more popular with new parents. It can only be done if the parents are doing an in vitro fertilization, which is when an egg and sperm are combined in a lab, then placed into the uterus. When PGD is done, the embryos are examined before uterine transfer to determine which embryos have genetic abnormalities and which are healthy.
Parents have the right to choose to input the healthiest embryo into the mother’s uterus. For parents having a natural birth, there is an option called amniocentesis. It is when a sample of the embryonic fluid is taken for testing. Doctors use the embryonic fluid to determine if the baby has a genetic disorder or some other disease. This is only done in the first trimester though because if the baby has a disease, it would still be early enough to perform an abortion if the parents choose to do so.
In 1999, Jesse Gelsinger, an eighteen-year-old at the University of Pennsylvania, volunteered for a trial there that was researching a metabolic disorder, called ornithine transcarbamoylase deficiency (OTC). OTC impedes ammonia elimination, which usually causes brain damage, comas and death, soon after birth. Most people with OTC hardly live to see the age of five, but since Gelsinger only had a partial OTC deficiency, he managed to keep it on track with medication.
When he first became apart of the trial, he was given an injection that ended up killing him. The injection was supposed to be a corrective OTC gene. It was encased in a cold virus, which was used as a vector, and injected into his hepatic artery. Four days later, he died from an immune reaction to the virus, which caused multiple organ failure. The issue with his death is that he was not told valuable information about the injection. Other patients, who were humans, had severe side effects from it.
Three monkeys who had been given the injection had died from it; it caused liver inflammation and a severe blood clot issue. Although, out of all four thousand of the trial patients who were given this injection, Gelsinger was the only one who died specifically because of it. Had he been given this information, he may have chosen to withdraw from the trial. This is why his case was brought up in law. Ultimately it resulted in more regulation.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suspended the trial, stopped all other human gene trials at the University, and investigated almost seventy other gene therapy trials going on around the country. With the help of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the FDA launched two programs aimed at keeping patients of gene therapy trials both safe and completely informed.
There was a more successful gene therapy trial that happened in 1990. Ashanti DeSilva was a four year old with Severe Combined Immune Deficiency Syndrome (SCIDS) who became the first person who was successfully treated through gene therapy. Doctors in her clinical trial replaced her somatic cells with proper genes that were unaffected by the disorder. She has stayed in good health, even years after her treatment. Although hers was a happy, healthy ending, not all patients who volunteer for these gene therapy trials end up healthy.
Ethical, social, and scientific issues were abundant regarding eugenics. Regarding ethics, the main issue is consent. As stated earlier, some laws allowed anyone labeled a degenerate to be sterilized. Sterilization is not a bad concept if a person chooses to have it done. When a person is not given a choice, they are damaged psychologically and physically. Taking away a person’s ability to bear children, is not only devastating psychologically, but physically.
Not having that ability could ostracize a woman from other ‘normal’ women who have children. Whether or not someone had decided to have children yet or not, everyone deserves that choice. Without children to carry on somebody’s genome, the gene pool was limited. In that sense, eugenics was working; unwanted characteristics were getting weeded out of the gene pool. Physically, these procedures were not easy. In women, sterilization consists of tubal litigation, which means that a doctor fills your abdomen with gas, and then cut into the reproductive organs and either seal, remove sections of or put clips in to block the fallopian tubes.
In males, sterilization, also known as a vasectomy, is less complex. The tube that transports sperm from testes to the semen (vas deferens) is blocked and no more sperm can pass through. While less painful in males, the same psychological issues arise. On the subject of these procedures, not all of them were successful. If something went wrong in the operating room, a lot of times the patient was euthanized. None of the doctors or officials involved with these practices were ever charged. There were private hospitals that supported euthanasia, which was illegal, but nothing ever happened to them. The government did not look for what they knew was there.
Socially eugenics is also corrupt. These forced procedures and labeling of people were seen as normal and even good. Society was taught that if someone is different than ‘normal’ people, they should not be allowed to have children who might not be ‘normal’. Being told that because you were raped and impregnated at age seventeen means you are sexually promiscuous and your child is below average because of it can only be damaging.
Society back during the early twentieth century was extremely conservative and had the power to get rid of people they did not like. Our society today shows that people who are sexually promiscuous, criminals, epileptic, deaf, blind, etc. can have fulfilling lives with above-average children. Another huge societal issue is our role in influencing other countries’ eugenics programs. American eugenicists published papers that strongly influenced how Germans idealized eugenics.
The Rockefeller Foundation, an American company, not only helped establish the German eugenics program, but also funded a program, Josef Mengele, right before he went to Auschwitz. The flaw with the funding is that the companies’ executives did not even know about Josef Mengele. They had stopped all eugenic studies involving Nazi Europe once the war started. While it cannot be said that American eugenicists technically did anything to cause the Holocaust and war that went on, it can be said that they held an influential role.
As for the scientific side of eugenics, the sterilization procedures were most likely done correctly, but there is one flaw in their main idea: most of the defective characteristics that they hated so much, were not genetic, therefore could not be stopped simply by sterilization. Deafness, blindness, epilepsy, and mental illness are often genetic, but all the others: sexual promiscuity, masturbation, criminality, homelessness, being an orphan, inebriation, etc. are purely environmental.
Gene therapy is thought to be much more advanced and has fewer issues than eugenics. This is true, but there are still issues that need to be addressed. As humans, we have never been able to choose to have a healthy baby versus an unhealthy one.
We have never had a way to tell if a baby would be sick until it was born. Gene therapy gave us this ability, but with it comes an ethical concern. Is it morally acceptable to choose one embryo over the other? There is not and probably will never be a proper answer to this. Some people feel that this type of choice is ‘playing God’. John Harris asks the question, “Is it morally wrong to wish and hope for a fine baby boy or girl? Is it wrong to wish and hope that one’s child will not be born disabled?” The obvious answer would be no, it is not morally wrong to wish for a healthy baby, but now that we can choose the healthiest baby, should we? Society would improve if more babies were born healthier, but that does not necessarily make it right or wrong.
Depending on the disability though, some parents might still choose to have an unhealthy baby, if it is a manageable disability. Whether a mother is having a baby in vitro or naturally, the argument may not be the same. For in vitro fertilization, a pre-implantation genetic diagnosis can be used to choose an embryo humanely before it starts to develop. Granted the ones not chosen do get thrown away a lot of the time, they have not yet developed even into a fetus; therefore it would seem to be morally acceptable. When it comes to natural births, it is a bit more complicated. A woman is already impregnated and the embryo has already developed into a fetus by the time it is tested for a disorder.
Once tested the mother can choose to abort it or keep it. The age-old argument of abortion is not one that needs to be argued in this paper, however it is a significant point for amniocentesis. By the end of the first trimester, a fetus usually develops recognizable features like limbs and ahead and is roughly three inches from top to bottom. Yes, three inches is small, but is it small enough to count as a person? That is an opinion that everyone is bound to have disagreements on. Morally, it may be less acceptable to abort the fetus, due to amniocentesis since it has already started development. But that choice, again, is up to the individual.
In general, it can be said that preferring a healthier baby is morally okay. Choosing to act on that preference is morally okay as well. It is nobody’s choice but the woman carrying the child and if she sees it fit to choose one embryo over the other, or abort a fetus she knows will have difficulties in life, she is free to do so. That is the essential difference between gene therapy and eugenics right there. Having the right to your own body.
It is probably a good thing that these advancements were not made during the eugenic movement because women definitely would not have had any control over their bodies or baby. For in vitro fertilization, the healthier baby would have had to be chosen over the less healthy ones. For normal pregnancies, the fetus would be terminated no matter what kind of disease or disorder it was found to have.
Gene therapy is all about helping cure and treats those who want to be cured and treated. Nobody forces them to participate in a gene therapy trial, and in most cases, all of the risks and information is given to those considering participation. Granted there are always exceptions of rule-breakers, who do not disclose all of the information like with Jesse Gelsinger. This may have been how eugenicists wanted to start their movement, but it is surely not where it ended up.
Perhaps they believed that what they were doing was morally right and necessary, even though it was not. Perhaps to them, eugenics was just as productive and respectful as gene therapy. Looking back at history we know that it was certainly not. How do we keep from repeating the past though? What is to keep gene therapy from becoming another eugenics movement? A few things actually; society has to know when to draw the line, patients must always be given choices and give consent, all information needs to be given to the patient before he or she can participate in any study and regulations must stay in place.
In regards to knowing where to draw the line, which simply means that gene therapy is kept to help individuals overcome legitimate diseases and disabilities. Eugenics crossed the line by trying to overcome ‘unpleasant’ qualities. If it does not interfere with the quality of a person’s life or the life of others around them, it should not count as a disability and therefore does not need to be apart of gene therapy. Those things can be apart of other trials, perhaps, but do not need to be apart of gene therapies.
When a person volunteers for a human gene trial, they go in with the hope that they can be treated, or at least their illness will help treat others. If they only know the surface information, they will not have any doubts and will proceed with the trial. However, if they are given all of the information and risks that go along with it, there is always a chance that they might say no. Even though this is a risk, it is their right as a patient to have all the information.
Perhaps the one thing that would throw our society back one hundred years is the consent issue. Without it, gene therapy trials would be just like the eugenics movement except actually dealing with diseases. Realizing how thin that line is, makes it even more important that it is not crossed. Thousands of lives were devastated and thousands more were not allowed to exist because these sterilizations done did not consider consent to be important.
As soon as a trial breaks any of these rules or any other violation of any kind, the FDA starts an investigation and suspends the trial. If this is kept up, it will not be difficult to keep gene therapy a ‘pure’ science. Doctors and scientists who individually violate these rules are held accountable, unlike during the eugenics days, which is another factor that keeps these trials going on the right track. Nobody took responsibility during the eugenics movement, even though thousands of people were affected. Doctors claimed they were doing what was best, even if it was illegal. Whether it was legal or illegal did not matter though, because charges were never brought up. Nowadays, everyone is held accountable for his or her actions, no matter how small.
What happened during the eugenics movement was a catastrophe, but we have learned many things from it. As a scientific community, we have learned so much more about genetics and what traits a person can pass down from generation to generation. Scientists now know how to not only delete genes from a person’s DNA but also replace them with healthy gene cells. As a society, we have learned what lines not to cross and which are okay to cross.
We have learned that no action can be held unaccountable. We have learned that everyone has a choice and that if they choose not to participate in something or to do another thing, such as choose an embryo to give life to, that person’s decision must be respected. A lot of the history on eugenics is hidden, from embarrassment and shame most likely, but history is there to teach society how to learn from their mistakes, and how to advance together.
Eugenics is a term used to describe a process that is implemented in hopes of creating a better race of humans through the genes the parent generation passes down to the offspring. Eugenics is defined as the study of human genetics prototypes with the target of developing the species using choosy breeding. Its doctrine dictates that genetic structures, rather than environmental factors solely determine human behavior.
The term was used originally by Englishman Francis Galton in 1883 who, incidentally, was a cousin of the famous evolutionist Charles Darwin. Galton was primarily concerned with mathematics. He was completing a statistical study of “latent ability” among a group of British people mainly through the reading of their biographical sketches, Galton noticed that most of these people were related somehow and he concluded that intelligence and other desirable traits could be passed on through heredity. He also concluded that the number of people with these abilities could be increased through marriages of those people who exhibited those traits. (1)
Many people blur the distinction between genocide and eugenics. And the Holocaust created by the Nazis wasn’t a method for eugenics but was a horrific example of genocide. Even the United States has used eugenics in some of its policies in the past. When immigrants started to come into this country in greater numbers the limits from certain countries was not based on the total number of people coming in at that time alone, but what the ethnic backgrounds of those people were as those in power, feared that these people wouldn’t be able to support themselves or would taint the gene pool of America.
Eugenics was a movement of pseudoscientific characteristics and manifesto that originated in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This movement made use of the universal science language to perk up the human race using breeding. “This breeding was exceptionally harmful to specific defenseless subpopulation segments, the poor, racial minorities, criminals, and the mentally and physically disabled through sterilization and marriage laws” (2).
While eugenics may have been used as a tool of oppression in creating an unwarranted means of keeping others down, it can be now used to do what the word means, “good in birth”. Since genetics has come into its own in the realm of science in regards to cloning and mapping genomes, great concern has been raised in regards to it mainly about the human genome. Many people feel that it may lead to a different form of eugenics one that may not involve killing people, but may involve killing fetuses and genetic selection/insertion after fertilization.
All parents desire to pass on to their children health and desirable traits. If a method can be scientifically developed why not take advantage of it. Even today people go through testing to determine if a fetus may have any kind of debilitating disease or defect. In some cases, many of these people do abort the fetus to forego any type of undue suffering on their part or the part of their child. Many people object to this for moral reasons which they feel are being violated.
To object from wanting to bring into this world a healthy child rather than one who may not live past their first day is kind of extreme. In cases of children who suffer from Spina Bifida an extremely debilitating birth defect the children who are born with it cannot live past a few hours or days without the help of machines or even at all. This fundamentally is a form of eugenics because it does not allow those with undesirable traits to live.
Eugenics, Genetics, and Heredity
To call bigotry or genocide eugenics or to believe it is such is skewing its definition almost infinitely. What Germans believed to be a form of eugenics symbolized through concentration camps was a thinly veiled form of genocide created through propaganda. If mankind now can make people smarter genetically before they are born it is then a form of eugenics beyond comparison to what may have happened under the banner of eugenics in the past.
It is a seemingly innate characteristic of humans to want better things for their offspring if we have developed the ability to do that without negative side effects why should it be stigmatized through the historical use of the term. Some traits may be found to be based on racism or bigotry such as how tall someone is or the color of their skin. But if this technology is used to let people have more intelligent babies or ones with less susceptible immune systems where is the evil? Sometimes people look to find the negative side of things even if it is far less visible than the positive.
As knowledge regarding the genetic constituents of human manners increases, so, precisely, does the number of prospects for its misuse. It is upsetting to envision naive criminologists who desire to exercise genetic data about conduct to recognize and manage antisocial individuals. It is possibly more troubling–because far more implemental–to consider employers and insurers who utilize such information to refute insurance or service to people reckoned inclined to valuable behaviors.
Given “the sordid history of attempts to use pseudo-biological explanations to justify the stratification of our society” (3) perhaps most disturbing of all is to picture that our contemporary society will exercise such research based to underpin the observation that existing structures of stratification are artless and natural.
Eugenics originated as a scientific movement, validated by the leading scientists of the time. To call eugenics a “pseudoscience” is to make it seem less threatening, but it is also incorrect; the great majority of scientists at the turn of the century believed in eugenics. In 1916, all five scientists who founded the American journal Genetics were advocates of eugenics, even though each was an established scientist of great reputation. (4) If most practicing scientists adhere to a certain view of the world, that viewpoint is, by definition, mainstream science.
Social Darwinism and American Eugenics
The growth of American industry created the first major migration away from farms, causing a shortage of adequate housing. Price fluctuations bankrupted businesses and created a series of depressions. Social Darwinism explained social and economic inequalities as “survival of the fittest.” However, a low birth rate of the wealthy suggested that captains of industry were losing the struggle for existence. At the same time, the working class had a higher birth rate.
Progressive advocates believed that science would treat any negative aspects in human and natural societies. As a result, genetics spit out a new science of social engineering that is called eugenics. Eugenicists believed that human social problems were the cause of inheriting defective germplasm. They argued that society would have to pay a high price to care for the defective individuals. Sterilizing one defective person could save future generations thousands of dollars.
Eugenicists planned to restrict immigration. According to eugenicists, state welfare and charity only treated the symptoms, but not the roots of the problems.
Diane Paul’s stance, however, those eugenics was (and remains) too versatile a phenomenon to delineate decisively and to expurgate from family planning and public policy. Numerous personal and policy decisions engage largely eugenic thoughtfulness, and, therefore, oppositions to the eugenics movement and its continued existence are objections to definite policies rather than to the wide-ranging inspiration of humanizing social groups.
Besides this, other aspects must be taken into reflection. “First and foremost, although ‘race’ was an accepted concept, there was no simple consensus on its meaning in the 1930s. There was nothing new in this: the fluidity of the term had been evident since the Renaissance, through the late nineteenth century” (5)
Scientific Origin of Eugenics
Francis Galton thought of eugenics as a way to improve humanity by encouraging healthy people to have children. Unlike negative eugenics, which rejected the disabled, Galtonian views usually, used positive eugenics. Degeneracy theory was accepted by scientists until the late 19th century. Masturbation was thought to be the cause of degeneracy. Most scientists believed that a bad environment caused degenerate heredity.
Morel expanded the causes to mercury poisoning, ergot, and other poisonous substances. A good environment could change degenerates into better citizens. Changes in body tissues had little effect on reproductive tissues. Some physicians were convinced that social failure was a medical problem. When hospitals failed to treat the psychotic, retarded, and the poor, eugenicists started to research preventive medicine. Eugenicists argued that degenerates should not breed. Most doctors felt sterilization was effective to prevent them from breeding. (6)
Eugenicists applied Mendel’s laws to explain the inheritance of human traits. Researchers tried to trace the inheritance through a pedigree. Beginning in 1900, Mendelian rules were used to explain the inheritance of traits in plants, animals, and humans. Eugenicists had difficulty when they tried to measure complex traits. Instead, they forced their data to make it look like it agrees with simple Mendelian rules. Now, geneticists know that DNA is the molecule of heredity. “Several historians have analyzed the complicated social roots of Galton’s eugenic argument; what is significant to our story is the way the language of “disinterested” science disguised those roots”. (7)
Flaws in Eugenics Research
There are five flaws associated with eugenics research. The first flaw was the difficulty of defining traits. Phenotypic traits are easy to measure, but mental and behavioral traits are extremely hard to measure because they’re difficult to be defined. The second flaw was that eugenicists treated complex traits as if they only had one cause. For example, intelligence was believed to be an innate quality of the brain with only one factor.
Later, however, experts realized there were many areas of intelligence. The third flaw was the poor survey and statistical methods. Much pedigree information was reported second-hand or sometimes rumor. The fourth flaw is false qualification. Not all tests were valid. For example, IQ tests sometimes contained questions that depended on background and experience. Tests were given under a variety of conditions. Some takers did not speak English at all. The last flaw was social and environmental influences.
Eugenics Popularization
The American Breeders Association researched areas that would have interested Galton. The ABA popularized themes of selective breeding of superior stock, the biological threat of “inferiors”, and the need for controlling human heredity. The legislation required racial registration certificates and strict qualifications of how could qualify as members of the white race. Additionally, it emphasized the basis of race assessment and hazards of interracial marriage.
Eugenics was used to stop the immigration of “inferiors”. (8) The Public Health Service supported eugenicists’ position on immigration restriction. Latin America is considerable specifically since it challenges the more general perception based on what Daniel Kevles has typified as the “mainline” eugenics movements of Europe as well as the United States. (9)
Many eugenists of Weismann Mendelian persuasion interpreted genetics to mean that heredity prevailed over the environment and that only a policy devoted to breeding–to regulating the production of innate fitness–was “eugenic.” This interpretation led very often to something of a disjunction between eugenics and traditional public-health or social reforms since medical care of the sick and social welfare measures were seen as needlessly interfering with natural selection and the elimination of the unfit. Many eugenists even recommended eugenics as a kind of alternative to traditional medicine. The British scientist Karl Pearson went much further; to him, writes Kevles, “The eight-hour day, free medical advice, and reductions in infant mortality encouraged an increase in unemployable, degenerates, and physical and mental weaklings.” (10)
In certain conditions, eugenics–a scientific, secular agenda that dealt exclusively with transmissible health in reproduction-became integrated into the sex transformation movement. Women themselves frequently played outstanding roles in supporting the justification of birth control and the essential registration and cure of venereal ailment. Incredibly often, they also admitted thoughtlessly the more culpable class and racial prejudices of eugenics, thus considering their own advantaged rank as members of the mediocre class. “Some women found in eugenics societies a new space for social action. Even in the most medically-oriented eugenics organizations, where a medical degree was a requirement for membership, women began to find opportunities for careers.” (11)
The relations between Latin America and the United States were developed still more problematic by the tremendous character of U.S. eugenics. From its initial days, eugenists in the United States had taken a strappingly reductionist, Mendelian stroke on ethnic development. Charles Benedict Davenport, the leader of U.S. eugenics had proselytized the new-fangled eugenics under the flag of Mendelism after he visited Galton and other eugenists in England in the initial years of the twentieth century. (12)
Edwin Black’s book ‘War against the Weak’ melodramatically emphasizes that American eugenicists initially “infected our society and then reached across the world and right into Nazi Germany,” (13) Goethe’s interest in the Nazi government, however, was not simply a nostalgic yearning for his biological and cultural roots. He was neither a sentimentalist nor a fifth columnist, as suggested by Edwin Black. (14) While interracial marriages emerge to have been truthfully dependent upon common appeal, the couple may have often been forced to substantiate themselves to an antagonistic and bigoted public. “Imperialism, social Darwinism, nativism, and the emerging science of eugenics all spurred white supremacy in this period. (15)
Eugenics Movement
In the 1990s several significant works were published that demanded a reevaluation of the eugenics movement. Studies of eugenics in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Brazil, Latin America, Russia, and the American South brought a variety of voices and new meanings to the history of eugenics in the twentieth century and challenged the notion that eugenics was a unilateral conservative social movement. Other studies teased multiple meanings out of the movement by looking at mass culture and the diversity of support eugenics received. Certain new studies helped to generate increased interest in the history of eugenics.
Yet there is more work to be done. One major problem is that most histories of eugenics pay little attention to gender. Though several historians recognize the importance of sexuality and gender to the eugenics movement, they limit their analysis to the role of women in the movement. Indeed, too often gender has merely become a synonym for women.
The role of gender in the eugenics movement requires complex analysis. Gender was important because women played “a significant part in the politics of eugenics,” which gave them “a new space for social action,” as scholars now argue. (16) But gender was also central to eugenics because the movement called for a new approach to understanding sexuality, reproduction, and the role of men and women in society.
Some women actively supported eugenics; some, as physicians, even sterilized other women; still, others lobbied against eugenics. They did not form a unitary coalition, but this lack of unity does not make gender any less relevant to our understanding of eugenics.
The race also needs clarification here. American eugenicists often made references to “improving the race” without specifying whether they meant the human race, the Anglo-Saxon race, or some other type of racial differentiation. Though the meaning varied from person to person, the common eugenic vision of “building a better race” was implicitly racist. While most of those targeted as in need of sterilization in California’s movement were white, the race was still at the center of the eugenic campaign. As Hazel Carby writes in Reconstructing Womanhood, “Work that uses race as a central category does not necessarily need to be about black people.” (16) Eugenicists were agents of racial discourse, and though it was sometimes unmentioned or merely hinted at, the race was a salient category in the eugenics movement.
Eugenic Thinking Evaluation
The genetic theory began in the 19th century with Gregor Mendel’s investigations into plant heredity. Independently of Mendel’s work, in 1859 Charles Darwin followed with his theory of natural selection in the book “Origin of Species”. Since its discovery, genetic manipulation has been a source of both joy and suffering to humanity. (17) Sir John Francis Galton, introduced the concept of Eugenics in 1883, as he attempted to understand the ‘genius’ that ran through his family. Eugenics is the theory that a scientifically directed process of controlled or selective breeding can improve the genetic code of mankind. (18)
The most extreme example of eugenic thinking was found with the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, where according to Nazi policy, ‘inferior’ races were ‘polluting’ the human gene pool. “Under Nazism, eugenics became national policy.” (19). Nazi philosophy placed much emphasis on eugenics and attempted to justify that genetic selection should be practiced deliberately for the good of mankind through sterilization and eventually extermination.
This form of pseudo-Darwinism didn’t stop at individual races but also persecuted the handicapped, the physically weak and, people with genetic defects. “Sterilization was only the prelude…the Nazis began the systematic murder of Germans who were insane, handicapped, or mentally retarded.” (19)
This method of genetic selection included the procreation of a ‘racial elite’ and the extermination of ‘damaging’ or ‘racially inferior’ groups such as Eastern Europeans or Africans. These were deemed racially inferior to a supposed race of Germanic Aryans, which the Nazi doctrines believed to be weakened by a substandard gene pool. “The Nazis regarded the Germans as racially superior, and considered the Slavs, Gypsies, and blacks to be inferior.
At the bottom of this scale were the Jews.” (20) The tragic consequences of the Nazi eugenicist efforts to cleanse the human genome of supposed racial inferiority interrupted the popular continuation of the eugenic train of thought with the closing of the extermination camps.
What could be a potential echo of the eugenic philosophy is the latest form of attempted manipulation of human genetics known as the Human Genome Project (HGP). The HGP is a worldwide research effort to analyze the structure of human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the genetic equivalent of a blueprint determining the function of every cell in the human body.
Whether it is the practice of eugenics or the HGP, the goal appears much the same: to eradicate unwanted or possibly unfashionable aspects of the human genome. Despite promises of the benefits in the HGP, many ethical, social, and political concerns urgently need to be resolved and consequences fully investigated. Without appropriate consultation and stringent legislation, there is a strong possibility once again, in the abuse of this science in areas like genetic discrimination.
Conclusion
Although we cannot foretell the ultimate results of this new eugenic movement, we can vaguely see their general nature. Eugenics gives man a marvelous instrument whereby in due time a whole nation may be elevated. Many and grievous mistakes will doubtless be made, and wrong steps will have to be retracted. Nevertheless, in the long run, we have reason to hope that man will use the art of eugenics as well as he has used the arts connected with tools, speech, fire, and writing. If this should happen we can scarcely expect less than that in physique, intelligence, emotional stability, and character, the most undesirable individuals of future generations will be at least the equals of those who now stand halfway from top to bottom.
In order better to understand how eugenics can thus benefit mankind, let us look briefly at the history of the great movement for the regulation of the quantity and quality of the population. Three great stages can be recognized. The first is personal because it is motivated solely by the desires of the individual, or at least of his family or clan. The second is institutional or social because it assumes a more highly organized form and is developed on a large scale for some general-purpose which is supposed to be for the good of the community at large. The third is evolutionary, or creative because it is devoted to the preparation of a new situation that will permanently create a finer and more satisfactory world.
All three stages are characterized by the conscious limitation of the population, the preservation of certain selected types, and the removal of people from one region to another. As a rule, man’s action in these respects has been based upon two more or less unconscious premises; first, that some particular part of the world does not contain the right number of people–either too many or too few; and second, that people of one’s kind are better than others. Darwin and other pioneers of evolutionary biology realized very clearly the basic importance of heredity for understanding evolution. However, it is only during the current century, and particularly during the last twenty to thirty years, that a theory of evolution based on the findings of the study of heredity, genetics, has become possible.
A large part of the reason why the subject of nature and nurture is so laden with emotion for so many people is that the new science of behavioral genetics has intellectual roots in the old ideas of eugenics. Eugenics is that field of study dealing with improving the inborn qualities of the human race, particularly through the control of hereditary factors. The emotional resonance of nature versus nurture controversy cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of the dark history of eugenics. No one should forget that the ideas touched on here are explosive; problems in human biology are fascinating, but they are also emotionally charged.
It is simply impossible to study our species as dispassionately as we would study an insect or a bird. Social values are inherent, or potentially so, in any scientific finding of humans, and the scientist who is unaware of this is naive and open to exploitation.
Although eugenics began as a scientific concern for the betterment of the human race, it evolved into a social and political effort to control human evolution. The ideas of eugenics were gradually perverted into ideals, against which all persons could be measured. Ultimately, millions of people were systematically killed by the Nazis because they did not fit the rigidly codified ideals of the day. The fact that mainstream science was used as a rationale for systematic genocide is proof that ideas can have great power. It is also proof that scientists who have ideas of great power may be unable to foresee the consequences of those ideas.
The intellectual roots of eugenics extend back to Plato, who believed that defective children should not be cared for by parents. He also believed that chronic invalids and those who were ill because of self-indulgence should not receive medical care and that moral degenerates should be executed. Plato even advocated temporary unions between superior men and women for the express purpose of having superior children.
Mendel’s work with pea plants was rediscovered in Germany at the turn of the century, and it inspired a tremendous flurry of scientific research in genetics. Germany quickly became the European center of activity in genetics, and it also became the center of activity in eugenics. Mendel’s laws of inheritance were soon invoked to explain many different familial patterns of inheritance, including the inheritance of mental illness, retardation, alcoholism, criminality, prostitution, and poverty.
Endnotes
Forrest, D.W. Francis Galton: The Life and Work of a Victorian Genius. New York: Taplinger, 1974. p.210.
Selden S. 1999. Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.
Paul, Diane B. Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the present (Atlantic Highlands NJ Humanities Press International, 1995) p 93.
Beckwith, J., “A historical view of social responsibility in genetics”, BioScience 43 ( 1993): 327-333.
Paul 1995:p106.
Galton F. 1869. Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences. London: Macmillan. p309.
Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity ( New York: Knopf, 1985), chap. 1.
Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press), p23.
Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), pp. 34-45.
Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Heredity ( New York: Knopf, 1985), p. 64.
Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity ( New York: Knopf, 1985), pp. 44-56.
Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race; New York: Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003; 267.
Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race; New York: Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003; 379.
Steven Selden, Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999).
Hazel V. Carby: Reconstructing Womanhood: The Emergence of the Afro-American Woman Novelist Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (1989) p.118.
Hazel V. Carby: Reconstructing Womanhood: The Emergence of the Afro-American Woman Novelist Oxford University Press, USA; New Ed edition (1989) p.170.
William Bateson: Mendel’s Principles of Heredity, a Defense, First Edition London: Cambridge University Press, 1902: p.66.
Wendy Kline: Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom; University of California Press (2001) p.98.
The goal of eugenics is to enhance human genetic characteristics. Early 20th-century proponents of eugenics thought they could improve people by eradicating their moral and physical defects. They sought to purge society of those who were deemed unsuitable by using eugenic techniques, such as sterilization, the encouragement of birth rates in particular groups, and other techniques. The first rules governing forced sterilization were adopted in the United States at the start of the 20th century. Eugenics has had an impact on thousands of people, particularly on immigrants of Mexican descent.
The conventional image of the Mexican as a criminal, ill, and unassimilable prevailed during the start of the 20th century. As a result, the United States did not welcome immigrants from Mexico. The 1924 Immigration Act led to an upsurge in unfavorable perceptions about Mexican immigrants (Molina 169). Mexican immigration fell sharply due to the repatriation of Mexicans to Mexico and the tightening of visa regulations. All of this was motivated by eugenics ideas. The figures show that in the 1920s, people of Mexican descent made up 11.2% of all immigrants (Molina 169). Mexicans were viewed as sick, impoverished, and dependent on the government. That is why the massive flow of migrants alarmed US citizens.
Moreover, Mexican women were considered to be fecund, which further worsened the situation. According to eugenicist Samuel Holmes, the lowly workers of Mexican descent will generate future citizens (Molina 171). This demonstrates how deeply concerned the populace was at the time about the country’s impending immigration of Mexicans. As an example of eugenics and racism, it may be argued that the public was frightened that Mexicans’ “poor genes” would move to the US. Mexican immigrants have particularly suffered as a result of these prejudices. Deportation caused many people to lose contact with their families, face discrimination in society, lose their rights, and continually live in fear.
One of the major concerns of immigrants of Mexican descent was deportation. If Mexicans lacked citizenship, documentation, or visas, they were deported. At the same time, obtaining US citizenship proved to be exceedingly challenging for them. They were not guaranteed a safe stay even if their child was born in the United States. With the Great Depression coming to an end, so did the demand for immigrants who provided low-cost labor. As a result, the nation started a program for the return of immigrants from Mexico (Molina 172). This was due to the fact that numerous Mexican immigrants got state subsidies, for which a considerable sum of money was spent.
Many Americans demanded that immigrants be deported because they saw them as “charity seekers” who relied on the taxpayers (Molina 172). No matter how long the immigrants had resided in the nation, where they worked, or if they had families, neither factor mattered. They were sent back to the nation they had fled from for much more complex reasons than most people could fathom. However, migrants were not welcomed in Mexico either because they were viewed as traitors (Molina 173). In addition, because they were raised in the US, where English is the official language, many of the children who were deported did not speak Spanish. Despite everything, immigrants from Mexico were forced out of their houses and sent back to the nation they had left.
The US government tried to improve the situation by passing the Kerr Bill. The Kerr Bill was created with the intention to allow some Mexicans remain in the US, but it was rejected (Molina 174). However, this measure shows how the state attempted to propose solutions to the deportation issue. Deportation was still a concern for many Mexicans at the time. Everyone whom the state regarded to be a “likely public charge” was expelled from the nation (Molina 174). Hence, those who lived and received aid for five years could be evicted, but those who got benefits for just a year could not.
Consequently, many immigrants were deported and deprived of everything they had acquired while residing in the US. For example, the Alvarados family with eight children was deported because the state spent about $7,000 on them (Molina 178). From this illustration, it is clear how children were viewed as commodities on whom public funds were only spent rather than as citizens who would contribute to the future of the United States. The reproduction of immigrants was not seen as contributing to the population increase of Americans. Immigrant children were viewed as an additional cost carried by taxpayers. When the children of immigrants are not regarded as capable and legitimate citizens of the country, this is a blatant form of eugenics.
In conclusion, Mexican immigrants to the US suffered as a result of the eugenics movement. The majority of Mexicans experienced discrimination and were concerned about being deported. The eugenics movement served as the basis for governmental legislation and regulation. Because the public considered Mexicans as burden and their children as nuisance, the government tried to reduce the Mexican migration to the country. Since the general population believed that Mexican immigrants were the issue, neither they nor the children born in the US were not considered citizens.
Work Cited
Molina, Natalia. “Deportable Citizens: The Decoupling of Race and Citizenship in the Construction of the “Anchor Baby.”” Deportation in the Americas: Histories of Exclusion and Resistance. Edited by Kenyon Zimmer et al., Texas A&M University Press, 2018, pp. 164-191.
The word ‘eugenics’ is derived from two Greek words, “eu” and “genes”. Loosely translated, the two terms mean ‘well’ and ‘born’.1 As such, eugenic is defined as the practice of improving human genes by promoting the development and sustenance of their positive elements. The positive aspects, in this case, entail the reproduction of subjects with admirable characteristics and traits. After observing how animals mate, some experts realized that they can improve the human race by making sure that people ‘breed well’.
Eugenic policies are described as a set of rules advocating for this new way of breeding. It was practiced in some parts of Europe in the 20th century. Strong men were selected to mate with the most attractive women. On their part, the women chose the men they wanted to marry and bear children with. In chapter 1 of their book, Agar gives the story of an inventor who redefined the idea of eugenics. Agar states that “The Repository (owned by Robert Graham in 1978) would offer the sperm of exceptional men to women unable, or unwilling, to become pregnant by their husbands”.2 The scenario is an indication of how seriously people took the issue of eugenics in the 20th century.
As a social philosophy, eugenic sought to improve hereditary traits among humans by creating perfect individuals. The policy was also aimed at reducing human suffering by eliminating such incidences as disabilities. Some of the strategies used in achieving this were regarded as inhuman. Scandinavians, for example, were forced to undergo sterilization to limit ‘negative’ breeding.
The current paper is written against this backdrop of eugenic practices in early societies. The author will look at eugenic policies and programs in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavian countries. Also, factors that led to the introduction of these practices in the Nordic region will be reviewed. The paper will focus on the policies as they were practiced in the Scandinavian countries in the twentieth century.
History of Eugenics
The term eugenic was coined by Francis Galton. Sir Galton got the idea from Charles Darwin, his cousin. After studying animals and plants for a long time, Darwin believed that it was possible to breed organisms in a positive manner.3 The theory was later applied to human beings. By the 20th century, some governments in Europe promoted the application of this new theory. It was believed that eugenics would lead to the creation of an improved generation of humans.
In this theory, some people are termed as ideal parents based on the quality of their genes. Others are regarded as unfit to bear children. Smart, loving, intelligent, and kind persons are the perfect candidates with regards to the reproduction of a bright future generation. On the contrary, those who are mentally ill, disabled, and poor are believed to be unfit for reproduction.4 In addition, some ethnic groups are referred to as ‘aberrant’ generations.
Galton was succeeded by Karl Pearson. The latter came up with the idea of biometry. Before Galton died, he was afraid his work may become extinct. To avoid this, he helped establish the University College of National Eugenics. Pearson founded the Galton Laboratories for National Eugenics. Charles Davenport is another influential figure in this field. Unlike Galton who majored in British eugenics, Davenport focused on America, his home country.5
Galton’s intentions may have been genuine. However, as Agar puts it, “(He) could not have foreseen the evil that would be done in eugenics’ name. This evil took its most concentrated form in the racist doctrine of human perfection promoted by the Nazis”.6 The Nazis and other unscrupulous politicians hijacked the policies to achieve their personal objectives.
Every country had its own way of employing this new theory. In most cases, individuals who were regarded as unfit members of society were identified and separated from the rest. However, efforts to eradicate poor quality genes led to cases of genocide in countries like Germany. Euthanasia was one of the strategies used to uphold eugenics. After isolation, practices like sterilization were carried out on the unfit individuals to prevent reproduction.7 In Germany, some of these patients were treated as guinea pigs.
Eugenic practices supported various elements of society to the extent that it became accepted as an academic discipline. It was offered as a course in institutions of higher learning. The policies have a long history in America. They were first established in 1900. The practice later spread to other parts of the western world. In Germany, eugenic doctrines were used by some individuals to justify racism. International bodies like IFEO (International Federation of Eugenic Organisations) were put in place to address issues arising from this practice. The organization worked on the assumption that human beings were unequal from birth.8 The organization even advocated for the passing of laws allowing the sterilization of individuals. The laws were one of the reasons why some people were forced to undergo the procedure.
By the end of World War II, eugenic practices had diminished. Genocide, either to promote eugenics or for other purposes, was treated as a serious crime. The developments led to a decline in the application of eugenics. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and other organizations argued against these practices. The critics were especially opposed to those practices that aimed at victimizing selected persons, such as the disabled.9
The Status of Eugenics in Scandinavia and other Contemporary Societies
In the modern world, beliefs that ‘good’ people should bear children while ‘bad’ individuals should not are regarded as contemporary forms of eugenics. Practices like Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) have been put in place to enhance positive breeding. Before one is termed as a potential candidate for the procedure, they have to undergo some tests. In the process, diseases associated with sex and genetics are controlled.
Clinics offering PGD also help in the family ‘balancing’. It is important to note that allowing PGD in women can lead to polygamy and prostitution. As a result, finding a suitable female candidate may prove difficult. PGD raises strong and conflicting emotions and opinions regarding human reproduction. Bodies mainly concerned with disability rights criticize this practice. They argue that the definition of disease by practitioners who engage in this activity is subjective. Women rights organizations also argue that giving birth should not be based on the character traits of the fetus. People with disabilities have to accept the fact that technologies enabling the selection of quality genes do not favor them.10 In the 20th century, tens of thousands of people with disabilities were sterilized in Scandinavia and other European countries.11
Eugenics in Scandinavia
Scandinavia is a cultural term that originally referred to the Danish region, which is currently regarded as Swedish. It is located in Northern Europe and consists of three kingdoms. The three are Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. It was developed in the eighteenth century when the idea of common heritage was more appealing. Most cultural practices in this region were borrowed from the Germans. As such, eugenics was a common practice. The Nordic region is made up of four countries.
The four include Scandinavia and Finland.12 Eugenics was practiced in the four countries from the early 1930s to late 1970s. For example, between 1934 and 1976, a total of 40,891 cases of sterilization were reported in Norway.13 The procedures were part of the wider eugenics program in the country.14 The practice received support from various groups in society. The thought of re-producing a perfect generation was very appealing to some people.
Factors that Promoted the Use of Eugenics across Scandinavia in the 20th Century
The idea of producing healthy and intelligent children was a major reason behind the application of eugenic practices. It was highly advisable for couples to re-produce when their physical and mental powers were at the maximum. Through this selective breeding, the future society was expected to be ideal. Future children will not be a burden to society.15 It was believed that the resultant ideal generation will promote the economy of the country. Eugenics was viewed as a form of salvation from degeneration and moral decay. Lombardo states that “By the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory enhanced fears of degeneration. Many worried that repeated generations of debased living could reverse evolutionary processes….”.16 Lombardo’s sentiments capture some of the motivations behind the adoption of eugenics in the 20th century.
Porter agrees with Lombardo by stating that the same Darwinian theories that elicited fears were used to deal with the degeneration problem. Porter states that “When Galton first attempted to translate the study of heredity into a social science of eugenics, his aim was the ‘possible improvement of the human breed’”.17
In the 19th century, many countries were experiencing rapid changes brought about by modernization and industrialization. There were urbanization and growth of industries.18 The development led to the emergence of slums, which increased to accommodate the high number of people living in urban centers. Poverty increased as the number of people rose beyond the level that could be supported by the economy comfortably. Eugenics practices were put in place in response to these negative elements of industrialization. It was believed that poverty from an early age can cause harm to the child.19
In Denmark, eugenics was inspired by the need to address the ‘rot’ in society. Drouard captures this vividly by stating that, “The case of Danish eugenics (was) studied by Bengt Sigurd Hansen in a chapter bearing the Shakespearean title, <>”.20 The statement by Drouard indicates that hygiene was another factor behind the use of eugenics in Scandinavia. The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene and other organizations were instrumental in educating the masses on the importance of ethnic purity. Public lectures and publications were some of the methods used in educating the community.21 However, with time, eugenics became a controversial topic. Human rights bodies argued that it is unethical to limit the process of childbearing.
A Comparison between American and Scandinavian Eugenics
Just like in the Scandinavian countries, eugenics in the United States was driven by the idea that humans had the ability to direct their own evolution.22 The idea was widely accepted and institutions of higher learning offered these courses to more than twenty thousand students. Scholars and scientists promoted these practices in the Scandinavian countries. An example of organizations created through these laws includes The American Association for the Study and Prevention of Infant Mortality. It was the first entity to investigate mortality rates after the introduction of eugenics. Its major objective was to enhance the health of future generations. The entity was similar to others created in Scandinavia to achieve the same objectives.
The first sterilization rule was passed in Indiana in 1907. The law was later modified by the Supreme Court in 1921. Several states in America incorporated this new rule into their legal structures. The courts gave authority to the states to sterilize anyone termed as unfit.23
Women were viewed as ‘couriers’ in the childbearing process. As such, they were more targeted by sterilization laws compared to men. Men were neutered to eliminate bad behavior and overcome aggression in society. Programs used to enhance eugenic policies included euthanasia, ‘better baby’ contests, and ‘fitter family for future’ campaigns. Specialists were used to judging these programs and winners were awarded medals.
A Comparative Analysis between Eugenics in Germany and in Scandinavia
Adolf Hitler believed that the nation had become weak and corrupt due to the degeneration and deterioration of members of the community. The population suffered a lot as a result of World War I. After the war, the government had to come up with ways to restore the health and physical wellbeing of the remaining population.
Like in Scandinavia, Hitler believed that the only way to restore the country was through racial hygiene and eugenic.24 As a result, the Nazis put in place laws that made sure every case of hereditary illness was reported. A total of 400000 individuals were sterilized at the time.25 The administration became so brutal to the extent that attempts to show USA eugenics were different from those adopted by the Nazi party were initiated. Drouard illustrates the differences between the practices in Scandinavia and in Germany by stating that, “…Scandinavian eugenics is theoretically defined as a ‘voluntary’ form of eugenics”.26
Spektorowski and Mizrachi support Drouard’s arguments in their comparison between eugenics in Germany and in Sweden. According to Spektorowski and Mizrachi, “At first glance, it seems unfeasible to pair Nazism with the Swedish welfare state”.27 However, it is clear that the practices in the two regions went against an individual’s human rights.28
Forced Sterilisation in Sweden
The country had some of the strongest policies regarding eugenics in Scandinavia. In 1927, the Swedish parliament put in place legislations regarding sterilization. Measures were put in place to identify those who were to undergo the procedure. For example, if an individual possessed undesired genes like insanity and hereditary illnesses, sterilization was recommended. In addition, policies were formulated to ensure that pregnancies did not risk the life of the mother.
Finally, if the individual was unable to ‘stand-in’ a child due to an illness, then they were sterilized.29 However, with time, these medical procedures reduced in number. Laws informing these practices were termed as vicious and barbaric. At some point, the Swedish government decided to compensate those who were subjected to this process. However, not everyone who underwent sterilization was remunerated. It is unclear why such brutal actions lasted for so long.
Eugenics in Britain
Like in Scandinavia, the eugenics movement was successful in Britain. It was promoted through social theory and politics. In addition, scientific ideas were used to support the movement. Personal qualities were believed to be hereditary. The practice was characterized by positive and negative elements. Roll-Hansen defines these concepts by stating that, “Two kinds of eugenics have traditionally been distinguished, positive and negative. Positive eugenics aims to enhance the genetic quality by conscious selection (of advantageous genes). Negative eugenics aims to prevent transmission (of disadvantageous genes)”.30
However, both of these approaches were regarded as oppressive. People with desirable hereditary traits were encouraged to marry and have many children. The move was regarded as a form of positive eugenics. On the other hand, unfit individuals were discouraged from engaging in parenthood, leading to negative eugenics.31
The practice was necessary to ensure that the future population was of high quality. The increasing number of people with disabilities in Britain informed the adoption of eugenics. Furthermore, it was a British man, Galton, who originally came up with the idea after studying the behaviors of plants and animals. Politicians and opinion-makers were among the first groups of people to embrace this movement. Eugenicists were so influential in British politics to the extent that commissions discouraging marriage between “unfit” couples were formed. The blind, deaf, and dumb were discouraged from engaging in reproduction.32 Beliefs that a disabled child was unnecessary in society had taken root.
Eugenic Practices in Other Countries
Countries like Britain and America have made efforts to make sure that the disabled feel appreciated in the community. During the eugenics era, these individuals were regarded as unfit members of society. They were viewed as a burden to others. The empowerment of the disabled persons created the impression that there was a difference between eugenics in German Nazi and America.33 However, the fact remains that the practice was inhumane in both countries, just like in Scandinavia. America encouraged Germany to embrace eugenics.
The relationship between the European and Scandinavian countries with regards to eugenics is disturbing. The practice led to genocides and other forms of violence against individuals. The countries supported sterilization to arrest the spread of disabilities and other health issues in the region.34 The governments took extreme measures by forcing individuals to undergo the procedure.
The Rise and Fall of Eugenics in Scandinavia
Attempts to improve the social life of citizens in Scandinavia led to the adoption of eugenics practices. People with disabilities were viewed as cumbersome in society as they had to be helped in their daily activities. Eugenics reached its peak by the end of the 20th century.35 Hitler had put in place programs to create a super race in Germany. His strategy augured well with eugenics. Sterilization laws were popular in Scandinavia and other European nations.
The thought of producing a perfect generation was captivating to the political class. However, after some time, people realized that the practices were not ethical at all.36 In countries like Germany, the victims were used in various medical experiments. The governments supported procreation between people with desirable genes. The move was regarded by those opposed to the program as a form of discrimination. As a result, disadvantaged groups and societies felt unwanted.
A number of religious bodies, such as the Roman Catholic, strongly opposed eugenics in Scandinavia and other nations. It was a violation of human rights to force people into health institutions and treat them like prisoners just because they have a condition that is not contagious. With the realization of what Hitler was willing to do to achieve his superior race, international dialogues on human rights were fostered. Such moves led to a decline in the implementation of eugenic policies in Scandinavia.
Conclusion
Eugenics is the practice used to enhance positive breeding. Advocates of these programs argue that human traits are hereditary. They opine that it is possible to shape human evolution by practicing selective breeding. As such, the disabled individuals and other persons with undesirable traits were not allowed to procreate. Such people were sterilized to ensure that they did not engage in procreation. In Scandinavia, eugenics was a common practice. Factors that led to the rise of these programs include increased population growth and deterioration in health. The aim of these practices was to create a perfect generation characterized by ‘smart’ individuals with high IQs.
Many countries adopted the new technique. The practices were firmly established in the USA by the 20th century. They later spread to Germany and other countries. Hitler adopted an extreme form of eugenics after the Nazi party came into power. People who were termed as worthless were killed.37 However, after some time, people realized that it was inhuman to subject others to such conditions. The realization marked the fall of eugenics.
Bibliography
N. Agar, Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement (New York, 2004).
M. Bjorkman & S. Widmalm, ‘Selling Eugenics: The Case of Sweden’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society 64:4 (2010), pp. 379-400.
E. Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York, 2012).
G. Chesterton & M. Perry, Eugenics and Other Evils: An Argument against the Scientifically Organised State (London, 2000).
A. Drouard, ‘Concerning Eugenics in Scandinavia: An Evaluation of Recent Research and Publications’, Population: An English Selection 11 (1999), pp.261-270.
T. Duster, Backdoor to Eugenics (second edition, New York, 2003).
R. Engs, The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopaedia (New York, 2005).
W. Kline, Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom (San Francisco, 2005).
P. Lombardo, Three Generations, no Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (London, 2010).
P. Mazumdar, Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, its Sources and its Critics in Britain (London, 2005).
D. Porter, ‘Eugenics and the Sterilisation Debate in Sweden and Britain before World War II’, Scandinavian Journal of History 24:2 (1999), pp145-162.
S. Reindal, ‘Disability, Gene Therapy and Eugenics: A Challenge to John Harris’, Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (2000), pp.89-94.
N. Roll-Hansen, ‘Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Scandinavia’, The British Journal for the History of Science 22 (1989), pp.335-346.
N. Roll-Hansen, ‘Eugenics in Scandinavia after 1945: Change of Values and Growth in Knowledge’, Scandinavian Journal of History 24:2 (1999), pp.199-213.
C. Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement (Oxford, 2004).
E. Simonsen, ‘Disability History in Scandinavia: Part of an International Research Field’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 7:3-4 (2005), pp.137-154.
A. Spektorowski & Mizrachi, E, ‘Eugenics and the Welfare State in Sweden: The Politics of Social Margins and the Idea of a Productive Society’, Journal of Contemporary History 39:3 (2004), pp.333-52.
D. Stone, Breeding Superman: Nietzsche, Race, and Eugenics in Edwardian and Interwar Britain (Liverpool, 2002).
Footnotes
P. Mazumdar, Eugenics, Human Genetics, and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, Its Sources, and Its Critics in Britain (London, 2005).
N. Agar, Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement (New York, 2004), p. 1.
R. Eng, The Eugenics Movement: An Encyclopaedia (New York, 2005).
Ibid.
Ibid.
N. Agar, Liberal Eugenics (New York, 2004), p. 3.
Ibid.
W. Kline, Building a Better Race (San Francisco, 2005).
Ibid.
S. Reindel, ‘Disability, Gene Therapy, and Eugenics: A Challenge to John Harris’, Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (2000), pp. 89-94.
C. Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement (Oxford, 2004).
N. Roll-Hansen, ‘Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement in Scandinavia’, The British Journal for the History of Science 22 (1989), pp. 335-346.
N. Roll-Hansen, ‘Eugenics in Scandinavia after 1945: Change of Values and Growth in Knowledge’, Scandinavian Journal of History 24:2, p.211.
Ibid.
E. Simonsen, ‘Disability History in Scandinavia: Part of an International Research Field’, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 7:3-4 (2005), pp.137-154.
P. Lombardo, Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (London, 2010), p.8.
D. Porter, ‘Eugenics and the Sterilisation Debate in Sweden and Britain Before World War II’, Scandinavian Journal of History 24:2 (1999), p. 147.
Ibid, p. 140.
Ibid.
A. Drouard, ‘Concerning Eugenics in Scandinavia: An Evaluation of Recent Research and Publications’, Population: An English Selection 11 (1999), p. 262.
Ibid.
R. Engs, The Eugenic Movements (New York, 2005).
P. Lombardo, Three Generations, no Imbeciles (London, 2010).
D. Stone, Breeding Superman: Nietzsche, Race, and Eugenics in Edwardian and Interwar Britain (Liverpool, 2002).
Ibid.
A. Drouard, ‘Concerning Eugenics in Scandinavia: An Evaluation of Recent Research and Publications’, Population: An English Selection 11 (1999), p. 262.
A. Spektorowski & Mizrachi, E, ‘Eugenics and the Welfare State in Sweden: The Politics of Social Margins and the Idea of a Productive Society’, Journal of Contemporary History 39:3 (2004), p. 339.
D. Stone, Breeding Superman (Liverpool, 2002).
M. Bjorkman & S. Widmalm, ‘Selling Eugenics: The Case of Sweden’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society 64:4 (2010), pp. 379-400.
N. Roll-Hansen, ‘Eugenics in Scandinavia after 1945: Change of Values and Growth in Knowledge’, Scandinavian Journal of History 24:2, p.200.
T. Duster. Backdoor to Eugenics (second edition, New York, 2003).
Ibid.
Ibid.
G. Chesterton & W. Perry, Eugenics, and Other Evils: An Argument Against the Scientifically Organised State (London, 2000).
N. Agar, Liberal Eugenics (New York, 2004).
E. Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race (New York, 2012).
It is important to note that many scientific achievements have brought numerous benefits to humanity. Still, they also caused harm on different scales, and such was the case with evolution and genetics. Eugenics is an ideologically rooted pseudoscience popularized in the early 20th century, which sought to perfect humans utilizing genetics, heredity, and selective breeding. Eugenics can be considered a form of scientific racism, where greater value is presented to members of a specific race and ethnicity over others. Therefore, the immorality of eugenics stems from its race-based ideology, genocidal aspirations, and the lack of scientific basis exemplified by its misunderstanding of genetic diversity.
Discussion
Eugenics gained success in the 20th century due to its ideology, which was attractive to a large part of the public and politicians. It was aimed at people considered unfit in society and, among other things, is based on scientific racism. Following the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), scientific racism manipulates scientific arguments to prove white supremacy (para. 7). In the US, for example, eugenics was supported by the legacy of slavery and fear of immigrants (NHGRI para. 17). The ideology was so influential and favorable for a dominant elite that it became part of politics in the states and spread to other marginalized groups, such as individuals with disabilities (Sear 202). As a result, eugenics was biased and justified prejudices, which prevailed in society and therefore received such support. Moreover, it is critical to consider that society is changing as well as qualities that are considered the most valuable, which indicates the uselessness of eugenics.
Eugenic biases, fueled by personal hostility towards some groups of people, led to genocide. In particular, Adolf Hitler’s belief that non-Aryan races were inferior became the reason for the genocide of the Jews during World War II (Eugenics para. 19-20). At the same time, eugenics does not have a scientific base, which only emphasizes its ideological and violent nature. The assumptions of the founder of eugenics Francis Galton about the simple transition of various features with inheritance are false (Sear 203). Moreover, some highlighted characteristics, for instance, a tendency to crime, are not clear enough. Other features, like intelligence, can be justified by genetics, but they are more complex in inheritance (Sear 203). Modern science proves that human traits can be influenced by many genes and environmental impact, while genes can also have multiple expressions (Sear 203). As a result, by their actions on sterilization and selective reproduction, eugenics could not achieve their own goals.
Conclusion
Thus, eugenics was aimed at destroying marginalized groups, which were considered unsuitable for society, and it had no solid scientific grounds. Its popularity was due to convenience for groups dominant in society, which led to eugenics becoming part of politics. Such features give reason to consider it an ideology, not a scientific theory. The extremely adverse manifestation of eugenics was the genocide of non-Aryan peoples during World War II, which emphasizes the immorality of its measures.