Eugenics — a scientific controversy or a moral debate?
Eugenics is a set of beliefs surrounding the idea of creating a ‘perfect’ human race, by selective reproduction. This includes segregation of people who possess genes that are deemed unworthy of being passed on, according to certain standards. This idea, although followed hundreds of years ago, was validated and given a name during the 19th century, by Sir Francis Galton.
Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences which improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those which develop them to the utmost advantage. — Sir Francis Galton
The BBC series entitled Eugenics: Science’s Greatest Scandal covers both how eugenics appeared as a concept and how it ended up affecting many lives, and it features Adam Pearson, a disability rights activist, and Angela Saini, a science journalist. Both discuss the effects of eugenics on the European, specifically British, society during the inter-war period, which is in the same timeframe as the ascent of Nazi Germany. Although eugenics might initially seem like a harmless belief, originating from Darwin’s theories of species variability, it would further become one of the reasons of human genocide. Starting from a utopian view of a society led by perfect, fit people, it escalates into a series of measures taken for eliminating people who are not “good enough” from the society, by isolation, incarceration or sterilization.
According to Saini, Sir Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Darwin, who first came up with the controversial concept, was enticed by the idea that the same artificial breeding used for pigeons or other animals can be applied to humans. Although Galton was known for his interest in statistical analysis, forensics and mechanisms of heredity, his passion for eugenics stood up. In the early 20th century, he co-founded the Eugenics Society, which had many other adherents at the time (including Winston Churchill). Nowadays, the institution is named Galton Institute and no longer hosts any activities related to eugenics (Galtoninstitute.org.uk, 2020).
The series also features Subhadra Das from UCL and the historian Richard Rieser, who are well acquainted with Galton’s methods of statistical analysis with the purpose of eugenics research. According to Das, Galton not only discriminated people based on physical and mental health, but also attractiveness, for which he invented devices to measure physical traits. Similarly, Rieser claims Galton would assess the level of intelligence based on a collection of headshots, knowing that there was some sort of connection between attractiveness and intelligence.
Eugenics and racism go hand in hand, a claim that can be confirmed by eugenicist creations like the Eugen Fischer’s hair colour gauge — a box containing a selection of 30 different synthetic hair types (Figure 2).
Seemingly a harmless collection, this object was designed by the German scientist (Fischer) to assess the whiteness level of people of mixed race. This, and other similar utensils would later contribute to one of the first genocides carried out by Germans in Namibia. Later, eugenics served as a ‘scientific basis’ for racial discrimination and nationalism in Germany, Fischer having participated in the creation of the anti-Semitic law, that cost the lives of many innocent people (UCL Culture, 2020).
In Germany, eugenics was known as the race hygiene movement, as stated in The Wellborn Science(Adams, 1990). The leaders of this movement claimed that mental illness, criminality, hysteria and diseases such as tuberculosis and epilepsy were hereditary. They believed that, by preventing breeding of people who had these conditions, they would overcome social problems that arose from German industrialization. The purpose was to create an illness-free, intelligent society, while the consequence was an extremist manifestation of the Nazi doctrine. During the inter-war period, eugenics movements were popular in multiple European countries such as (but not limited to) Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, France, and United Kingdom (Turda and Weindling, 2007).
In Britain, on the other hand, eugenicists opted for a different method of fighting the same social and economic problems. Believing that feeble-minded people were one reason behind economic decline, and that they were becoming a threat to ‘healthy’ people and themselves, Eugenics Society members decided that sterilization would not be enough to prevent these people from breeding (Mazumdar, 2011). Institutionalization, however, would help solve the problems. Pierson and Rieser discuss, in the BBC series, how children who were claimed to be mentally deficient, would be locked up in specialized institutions, isolated, and kept there for decades. There, they would be treated in ways that contravened their fundamental human rights.
Interestingly enough, eugenics would meet early 20th century feminism in Britain. Saini mentions that maybe eugenics could have had a brighter side — birth control — which was promoted by the feminist Marie Stopes. During the 1920s, a birth control clinic was opened in London, specifically for lower class people, who were not aware of contraceptive methods that would prevent unintended pregnancies. Behind these heroic deeds, however, were Stopes’ intentions that aligned with the Eugenics Society. By preventing birth of ‘lower-class’ children, she would contribute to creating a better, more functional society.
The question is, can eugenics be considered a science, or is it more of a policy? The foundation of eugenic beliefs were heredity and social Darwinism, nevertheless, they ended up being used for backing up extremist political ideologies and violation of human rights. But even without being taken to extremes, creating a ‘perfect’ race, either through inhumane methods, or new scientific technologies would not necessarily guarantee a healthy and successful society. That is, because eliminating the variability factor from the human race, could lead to a decreased diversity in human populations, causing unpredictable effects on human health and immunity. At last, a society is defined by human behaviour rather than incidence of certain phenotypes, because, as the ‘unfit’ people were sent to isolation and some were killed, the proclaimed ‘fit’ ones were carrying out genocides and starting wars.
Other sources used:
- Adams, M. (1990). The Wellborn science. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.11–15.
- Mazumdar, P. (2011). Eugenics, human genetics, and human failings. London: Routledge, pp.142–151.
- Turda, M. and Weindling, P. (2007). “Blood and homeland”. Budapest: Central European University Press.
