/yooh jen"iks/, n. (used with a sing. v.)the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).[1880-85; see EUGENIC, -ICS]
* * *Study of human improvement by genetic means.The first thorough exposition of eugenics was made by Francis Galton, who in Hereditary Genius (1869) proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. The American Eugenics Society, founded in 1926, supported Galton's theories. U.S. eugenicists also supported restriction on immigration from nations with "inferior" stock, such as Italy, Greece, and countries of eastern Europe, and argued for the sterilization of insane, retarded, and epileptic citizens. Sterilization laws were passed in more than half the states, and isolated instances of involuntary sterilization continued into the 1970s. The assumptions of eugenicists came under sharp criticism beginning in the 1930s and were discredited after the German Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of Jews, blacks, and homosexuals. See also genetics, race, social Darwinism.
* * *▪ geneticsIntroductionthe selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans. The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by the British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton (Galton, Sir Francis), who, influenced by Charles Darwin (Darwin, Charles)'s theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.” social Darwinism, the popular theory in the late 19th century that life for humans in society was ruled by “survival of the fittest,” helped advance eugenics into serious scientific study in the early 1900s. By World War I, many scientific authorities and political leaders supported eugenics. However, it ultimately failed as a science in the 1930s and '40s, when the assumptions of eugenicists became heavily criticized and the Nazis used eugenics to support the extermination of entire races.Early historyAlthough eugenics as understood today dates from the late 19th century, efforts to select matings in order to secure offspring with desirable traits date from ancient times. Plato's Republic (c. 378 BC) depicts a society where efforts are undertaken to improve human beings through selective breeding. Later, Italian philosopher and poet Tomasso Campenella (Campanella, Tommaso), in City of the Sun (1623), described a utopian community in which only the socially elite are allowed to procreate. Galton, in Hereditary Genius (1869), proposed that a system of arranged marriages between men of distinction and women of wealth would eventually produce a gifted race. In 1865, the basic laws of heredity were discovered by the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel (Mendel, Gregor). His experiments with peas demonstrated that each physical trait was the result of a combination of two units (now known as genes (gene)) and could be passed from one generation to another. However, his work was largely ignored until its rediscovery in 1900. This fundamental knowledge of heredity provided eugenicists—including Galton, who influenced his cousin Charles Darwin—with scientific evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.The advancement of eugenics was concurrent with an increasing appreciation of Charles Darwin's account for change or evolution within society—what contemporaries referred to as Social Darwinism. Darwin had concluded his explanations of evolution by arguing that the greatest step humans could make in their own history would occur when they realized that they were not completely guided by instinct. Rather, humans, through selective reproduction, had the ability to control their own future evolution. A language pertaining to reproduction and eugenics developed, leading to terms such as positive eugenics, defined as promoting the proliferation of “good stock,” and negative eugenics, defined as prohibiting marriage and breeding between “defective stock.” For eugenicists, nature was far more contributory than nurture in shaping humanity.During the early 1900s, eugenics became a serious scientific study pursued by both biologists and social scientists. They sought to determine the extent to which human characteristics of social importance were inherited. Among their greatest concerns were the predictability of intelligence and certain deviant behaviours. Eugenics, however, was not confined to scientific laboratories and academic institutions. It began to pervade cultural thought around the globe, including the Scandinavian countries, most other European countries, North America, Latin America, Japan, China, and Russia. In the United States, the eugenics movement began during the Progressive Era and remained active through 1940. It gained considerable support from leading scientific authorities such as zoologist Charles B. Davenport (Davenport, Charles Benedict), plant geneticist Edward M. East (East, Edward Murray), and geneticist and Nobel Prize laureate Hermann J. Muller (Muller, Hermann Joseph). Political leaders in favour of eugenics included U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt (Roosevelt, Theodore), Secretary of State Elihu Root (Root, Elihu), and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall Harlan (Harlan, John Marshall). Internationally, there were many individuals whose work supported eugenic aims, including British scientists J.B.S. Haldane (Haldane, J.B.S.) and Julian Huxley (Huxley, Sir Julian) and Russian scientists Nikolay K. Koltsov and Yury A. Filipchenko.Eugenics organizations and legislationGalton had endowed a research fellowship in eugenics in 1904 and, in his will, provided funds for a chair of eugenics at University College, London. The fellowship and later the chair were occupied by Karl Pearson (Pearson, Karl), a brilliant mathematician who helped to create the science of biometry (probability and statistics), the statistical aspects of biology. Pearson was a controversial figure who believed that environment had little to do with the development of mental or emotional qualities. He felt that the high birth rate of the poor was a threat to civilization and that the “higher” races must supplant the “lower.” His views gave countenance to those who believed in racial and class superiority. Thus, Pearson shares the blame for the discredit later brought on eugenics.In the United States, the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was opened at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, N.Y., in 1910 with financial support from the legacy of railroad magnate Edward Henry Harriman (Harriman, Edward Henry). Whereas ERO efforts were officially overseen by Charles B. Davenport, director of the Station for Experimental Study of Evolution (one of the biology research stations at Cold Spring Harbor), ERO activities were directly superintended by Harry H. Laughlin, a professor from Kirksville, Mo. The ERO was organized around a series of missions. These missions included serving as the national repository and clearinghouse for eugenics information, compiling an index of traits in American families, training field-workers to gather data throughout the United States, supporting investigations into the inheritance patterns of particular human traits and diseases, advising on the eugenic fitness of proposed marriages, and communicating all eugenic findings through a series of publications. To accomplish these goals, further funding was secured from the Carnegie Institution of Washington, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the Battle Creek Race Betterment Foundation, and the Human Betterment Foundation.Prior to the founding of the ERO, eugenics work in the United States was overseen by a standing committee of the American Breeder's Association (eugenics section established in 1906), chaired by ichthyologist and Stanford University president David Starr Jordan (Jordan, David Starr). Research from around the globe was featured at three international congresses, held in 1912, 1921, and 1932. In addition, eugenics education was monitored in Britain by the English Eugenics Society (founded by Galton in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society) and in the United States by the American Eugenics Society.Following World War I, the United States gained status as a world power. A concomitant fear arose that if the healthy stock of the American people became diluted with socially undesirable traits, the country's political and economic strength would begin to crumble. The maintenance of world peace by fostering democracy, capitalism, and, at times, eugenics-based schemes was central to the activities of “the Internationalists,” a group of prominent American leaders in business, education, publishing, and government. One core member of this group, the New York lawyer Madison Grant, aroused considerable pro-eugenic interest through his best-selling book The Passing of the Great Race (1916). Beginning in 1920, a series of congressional hearings was held to identify problems that immigrants were causing the United States. As the country's “eugenics expert,” Harry Laughlin provided tabulations showing that certain immigrants, particularly those from Italy, Greece, and Eastern Europe, were significantly overrepresented in American prisons and institutions for the “feebleminded.” Further data were construed to suggest that these groups were contributing too many genetically and socially inferior people. Laughlin's classification of these individuals included the feebleminded, the insane, the criminalistic, the epileptic, the inebriate, the diseased—including those with tuberculosis, leprosy, and syphilis—the blind, the deaf, the deformed, the dependent, chronic recipients of charity, paupers, and “ne'er-do-wells.” Racial overtones also pervaded much of the British and American eugenics literature. In 1923, Laughlin was sent by the U.S. secretary of labour as an immigration agent to Europe to investigate the chief emigrant-exporting nations. Laughlin sought to determine the feasibility of a plan whereby every prospective immigrant would be interviewed before embarking to the United States. He provided testimony before Congress that ultimately led to a new immigration law in 1924 that severely restricted the annual immigration of individuals from countries previously claimed to have contributed excessively to the dilution of American “good stock.”Immigration control was but one method to control eugenically the reproductive stock of a country. Laughlin appeared at the centre of other U.S. efforts to provide eugenicists greater reproductive control over the nation. He approached state legislators with a model law to control the reproduction of institutionalized populations. By 1920, two years before the publication of Laughlin's influential Eugenical Sterilization in the United States (1922), 3,200 individuals across the country were reported to have been involuntarily sterilized (sterilization). That number tripled by 1929, and by 1938 more than 30,000 people were claimed to have met this fate. More than half of the states adopted Laughlin's law, with California, Virginia, and Michigan leading the sterilization campaign. Laughlin's efforts secured staunch judicial support in 1927. In the precedent-setting case of Buck v. Bell, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr.), upheld the Virginia statute and claimed, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”Popular support for eugenicsDuring the 1930s, eugenics gained considerable popular support across the United States. Hygiene courses in public schools and eugenics courses in colleges spread eugenic-minded values to many. A eugenics exhibit titled “Pedigree-Study in Man” was featured at the Chicago World's Fair in 1933–34. Consistent with the fair's “Century of Progress” theme, stations were organized around efforts to show how favourable traits in the human population could best be perpetuated. Contrasts were drawn between the emulative, presidential Roosevelt family and the degenerate “Ishmael” family (one of several pseudonymous family names used, the rationale for which was not given). By studying the passage of ancestral traits, fairgoers were urged to adopt the progressive view that responsible individuals should pursue marriage ever mindful of eugenics principles. Booths were set up at county and state fairs promoting “fitter families” contests, and medals were awarded to eugenically sound families. Drawing again upon long-standing eugenic practices in agriculture, popular eugenic advertisements claimed it was about time that humans received the same attention in the breeding of better babies that had been given to livestock and crops for centuries.Antieugenics sentimentAntieugenics sentiment began to appear after 1910 and intensified during the 1930s. Most commonly it was based on religious grounds. For example, the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii condemned reproductive sterilization, though it did not specifically prohibit positive eugenic attempts to amplify the inheritance of beneficial traits. Many Protestant writings sought to reconcile age-old Christian warnings about the heritable sins of the father to pro-eugenic ideals. Indeed, most of the religion-based popular writings of the period supported positive means of improving the physical and moral makeup of humanity.In the early 1930s, Nazi (Nazi Party) Germany adopted American measures to identify and selectively reduce the presence of those deemed to be “socially inferior” through involuntary sterilization. A rhetoric of positive eugenics in the building of a master race pervaded Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene) movements. When Germany extended its practices far beyond sterilization in efforts to eliminate the Jewish and other non-Aryan populations, the United States became increasingly concerned over its own support of eugenics. Many scientists, physicians, and political leaders began to denounce the work of the ERO publicly. After considerable reflection, the Carnegie Institution formally closed the ERO at the end of 1939.During the aftermath of World War II, eugenics became stigmatized such that many individuals who had once hailed it as a science now spoke disparagingly of it as a failed pseudoscience. Eugenics was dropped from organization and publication names. In 1954, Britain's Annals of Eugenics was renamed Annals of Human Genetics. In 1972, the American Eugenics Society adopted the less-offensive name Society for the Study of Social Biology. Its publication, once popularly known as the Eugenics Quarterly, had already been renamed Social Biology in 1969.U.S. Senate hearings in 1973, chaired by Edward Kennedy (Kennedy, Edward M.), revealed that thousands of U.S. citizens had been sterilized under federally supported programs. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare proposed guidelines encouraging each state to repeal their respective sterilization laws. Other countries, most notably China, continue to support eugenics-directed programs openly in order to ensure the genetic makeup of their future.The “new eugenics”Despite the dropping of the term eugenics, eugenic ideas remain prevalent in many issues surrounding human reproduction. Medical genetics, a post-World War II medical specialty, encompasses a wide range of health concerns, from genetic screening and counseling to fetal gene manipulation (genetic engineering) and the treatment of adults suffering from hereditary disorders (genetic disease, human). Because certain diseases (e.g., hemophilia and Tay-Sachs disease) are now known to be genetically transmitted, many couples choose to undergo genetic screening, in which they learn the chances that their offspring have of being affected by some combination of their hereditary backgrounds. Couples at risk of passing on genetic defects may opt to remain childless or to adopt children. Furthermore, it is now possible to diagnose certain genetic defects in the unborn. Many couples choose to terminate a pregnancy that involves a genetically disabled offspring. These developments have reinforced the eugenic aim of identifying and eliminating undesirable genetic material. Counterbalancing this trend, however, has been medical progress that enables victims of many genetic diseases to live fairly normal lives. Direct manipulation of harmful genes is also being studied. If perfected, it could obviate eugenic arguments for restricting reproduction among those who carry harmful genes. Such conflicting innovations have complicated the controversy surrounding what many call the “new eugenics.” Moreover, suggestions for expanding eugenics programs, which range from the creation of sperm banks for the genetically superior to the potential cloning (clone) of human beings, have met with vigorous resistance from the public, which often views such programs as unwarranted interference with nature or as opportunities for abuse by authoritarian regimes.Applications of the Human Genome Project are often referred to as “Brave New World” genetics or the “new eugenics”; however, the ethical, legal, and social implications of this international project are monitored much more closely than were early 20th-century eugenics programs. Still, with or without the use of the term, many eugenics-related concerns are reemerging as a new group of individuals decide how to regulate the application of genetics science and technology. This gene-directed activity, in attempting to improve upon nature, may not be that distant from what Galton implied in 1909 when he described eugenics as the “study of agencies, under social control, which may improve or impair” future generations.Philip K. WilsonAdditional ReadingDaniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (1985, reissued with a new preface, 1995), remains the cornerstone for all contemporary eugenics scholarship. Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (1995), serves as a superlative introduction. Mathew Thomson, The Problem of Mental Deficiency: Eugenics, Democracy, and Social Policy in Britain, 1870–1959 (1998), analyzes many social dimensions of British eugenics. Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (1998), thoroughly explores the Nazi's eugenic-mindedness. Philip R. Sloan (ed.), Controlling Our Destinies: Historical, Philosophical, Ethical, and Theological Perspectives on the Human Genome Project (2000), provides a foundation work for discussion on the “new eugenics.”P.K.W.
* * *
Look at other dictionaries:
Eugenics — is the self direction of human evolution : Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference, 1921, depicting Eugenics as a tree which unites a variety of different fields. Eugenics is the applied science or the bio social movement which… … Wikipedia
Eugenics — • Eugenics literally means good breeding . It is defined as the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight. 2006.… … Catholic encyclopedia
eugenics — 1883, coined (along with adj. eugenic) by English scientist Francis Galton (1822 1911) on analogy of ethics, physics, etc. from Gk. eugenes well born, of good stock, of noble race, from eu good (see EU (Cf. eu )) + genos birth (see GENUS (Cf.… … Etymology dictionary
Eugenics — Eu*gen ics, n. The science of improving stock, whether human or animal. F. Galton. [1913 Webster] … The Collaborative International Dictionary of English
eugenics — eugenics. См. евгеника. (Источник: «Англо русский толковый словарь генетических терминов». Арефьев В.А., Лисовенко Л.А., Москва: Изд во ВНИРО, 1995 г.) … Молекулярная биология и генетика. Толковый словарь.
eugenics — ► PLURAL NOUN ▪ the science of using controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics in a population. DERIVATIVES eugenic adjective eugenicist noun & adjective. ORIGIN from Greek eu well + gen s born … English terms dictionary
eugenics — [yo͞o jen′iks] n. [< Gr eugenēs (see EUGENE1) + ICS] the movement devoted to improving the human species through the control of hereditary factors in mating … English World dictionary
Eugenics — Literally, meaning normal genes, eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding. The use of Albert Einstein s sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at… … Medical dictionary
eugenics — From the Greek eu (well) and gens (to produce), eugenics refers to the manipulation of the processes of evolutionary selection, in order to improve a particular genetic stock or population. This may be achieved either through ‘negative’ eugenics… … Dictionary of sociology
Eugenics — The ideological foundation of Nazi doctrine rested on its objective of producing a master race of blond, blue eyed Aryans. Because the Nazis believed that race was the primary determinant of national greatness, they sought to improve their… … Historical dictionary of the Holocaust