Genetics, Politics and SocietyEugenicsSocial DarwinismEugenics Redux: Early promulgationEugenics and Social Darwinism in Practice: The United StatesCompulsory sterilizationImmigration legislationEugenics and Social Darwinism in Practice: GermanyNazi Germany: Compulsory sterilizationNazi Germany: ``Racial hygiene''Nazi Germany: Lebensborn (Font of Life)Nazi Germany: ``Euthanasia''Nazi Germany: The final solutionGenetics and politics in the Soviet Union: LysenkoReferencesChapter 1Genetics, Politics and Society1.1 EugenicsFrancis Galton coined the word eugenics in his 1883 book Inquiries into HumanFaculty and Its Development. The term itself derives from the Greek prefix eu(eu)meaninggoodorwellandtheGreekwordgenos (genosv)meaningrace,kind or stock.In 1904, Galton gave a presentation to the Sociological Society in Londonabout eugenics. His presentation, along with invited public commentary, ap-peared in the American Journal of Sociology with virtually identical versions(sans commentary) appearing in Nature and, with commentary, in SociologicalPapers (Galton, 1904a,b, 1905). In these papers, he defined e ugen ics as “thescience which deals with all influences that improve and develop the inborn qual-ities of a race.” (It is crucial to recognize that the word “race” was used at thattime in an equivocal fashion. It could denote the term as we use it today, butit could also refer to a n ationality—e.g., the English race—or even a breed ofhorse or dog. Galton himself meant it in the generic sense of “stock.”) Galton’sview of the future combined fervor with caution:Iseenoimpossibilityineugenicsbecomingareligiousdogmaamong mankind, but its details must first be worked out sed ulouslyin the study. Overzeal leading to hasty action would do harm, byholding out expectations of a near golden age, which will certainlybe falsified and cause the science to be discredited.By “the study” Galton was referring to academic research. His message wasstrikingly clear—get the science right before implementing eugenics. Recallthat at the time, there was still considerable debate over what was inherited and“Mendel’s units,” as they were then termed, were far from universally accepted.The commentaries that followed his talk provide an illuminating snapshotof the differing attitudes towards eugenics at the time. Some samples: Play-wright George Bernard Shaw takes a decidedly positive tone: “ . . . there is now11.1. EUGENICS CHAPTER 1. GENETICS, POLITICS AND SOCIETYno reasonable excuse for refusing to face the fact that nothing but a eugenicreligion can save our civilization from the fate that has overtaken all previouscivilizations.”Physician Henry Maudsley1applauds Galton’s caution but politely empha-sizes his reservations about the whole eugenic enterprise: “I am not sure butthat nature, in its own blind impulsive way, does not manage things’ better thanwe can by any light of reason . . . .” In other words, “You can’t fool MotherNature.”Author H.G. Wells takes issue with one of Galton’s premises—that there aresome traits universally regarded as good or bad. Consider crime: “I am inclinedto believe that a large proportion of our present-day criminals are the b rightestand b old est members of families living under impossible con ditions.”Physician Rob ert Hutchison2, among others, questions the whole role ofinheritance and advocates “ . . . it is not so necessary to improve the rawmaterial [i.e., individual people], which is not so very bad after all, as it is toimprove the environment in which the raw material is brought up.”Even feminism has a voice. Mrs. Dr. [Alice] Drysdale Vickery3states, “I holdvery strongly that the question of heredity , as we study it at present, is verymuch a question of masculine heredity only, and that heredity with feminineaspects is very much left out of account. Mr. Galton told us that a certainnumber of burgesses’ names had absolutely disappeared; but what about thenames of their wives, and how would that consideration affect his conclusion?In the future, the question of population will, I hope, b e con s idered very muchfrom the feminine point of view; and if we wish to produce a well-developedrace, we must treat our womankind a little better than we do at present. “ Herpique about “burgesses” refers to Galton’s Hereditary Genius (Galton, 1869,1891) that stud ied only men.Galton himself has the last say and was clearly not pleased with the com-ments: “When this debate began, I was extremely unhappy at the quality of it.... if the society is to do any good work in this direction, it must attack it inamuchbetterwaythanthemajorityofspeakersseemtohavedonetonight.”One might expect opposition from sociologists, but many of the commen-tators were physicians, writers, and scholars in other areas. Still, we see thateven in England, the birthplace of euge nics and social Darwinism, there werecautionary notes and well as direct opp osition to the new movement.To understand the further development of eugenics, we must first divert at-tention to a movement that has become known as social Darwinism. A unionbetween some eugenic theories and social Darwinism led to disastrous conse-quences.1Henry Maudsley was a psychiatrist who founded what became known as the MaudsleyHospital in South London devoted to the teaching, research, and care of the mentally ill.2Sir Robert Grieve Hutchison was a prominent radiologist who discovered Hutchison’sdisease (a form of cancer) and pioneered the use of radiation therapy for some cancers.3Alice Drysdale Vickery was “among the first five women to achieve a medical qualificationin the British Isles, [and] was one of the pioneers of the women’s progressive movements, andespecially of that for birth control” (obit in the Br itish Medical Journal,1(3553):276).2CHAPTER 1. GENETICS, POLITICS AND SOCIETY1.2. SOCIAL DARWINISM1.2 Social DarwinismThe encyclopedia Britannica defines social Darwinisn as “the theory that per-sons, groups, and races are subject to the same laws of natural selection asCharles Darwin had perceived in plants and animals in n ature.” Hence, personcompetes against person, tribe against tribe, culture against culture, and raceagainst race. Winners deserved a position of dominance and losers a role ofsubservience. In Victorian England, where the philosophy was most prominent,it was an excuse for colonialism.There are two widespread misconceptions about