In Defense of Eugenics

Abstract

The best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom, as possible. Plato: The Republic, c. B.C.370 Eugenics: A Reassessment Richard Lynn Westport, CF: Praeger, 2001 366pp., $85 US As a scientific field the legacy of eugenics is a peculiar one. For several decades, its image in terms of an intellectual movement has been shaped by falsehoods and distortions. The conventional view reflects not just a degree of bias from historical accounts but scathing exaggerations, which portray a once thriving discipline as morally and scientifically discredited. But is this an accurate assessment of a discipline that once attracted preeminent scholars, appealed to distinguished individuals of accomplishment - university presidents, medical professionals, scientific innovators, and philanthropists alike - and received considerable support from various quarters of society? If not, then how did it acquire such an odious reputation and why? Richard Lynn's recent book reconsiders the credibility of eugenics as a valid scientific endeavor. Unlike other contemporary accounts, Lynn's thorough study provides a comprehensive second look by scrutinizing a number of antieugenic arguments that over the years have called into question its credibility. In sober and dispassionate terms, Lynn's careful analysis of various eugenic policies - including the societal implications that are likely to follow a eugenic renewal - is long overdue, and for its meticulous tour de force probe, his account offers an unrivaled assessment of this vastly maligned subject. In other words, don't expect to find it on Oprah's book club listl As thorough and objective as Lynn's book is, it remains engulfed by a biased literature that generates a continuous stream of anti-eugenic works. Unfortunately, the high price ($85) and limited availability of Lynn's excellent and timely book will unlikely provide an adequate level of balance against a tide of negative sentiments. The scholarship that spans the history of this once thriving field is saturated with hysterical screeds such as Stefan Kuhl's The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism and German National Socialism and Nicole Hahn Rafter's Creating Born Criminals. Historical accounts, typical of Garland Allen and Daniel Kevles, depict leading eugenicists as malevolent misanthropes. Even the Dolan DNA Learning Center of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which contains an archive for the American Eugenics Movement, claims on their web site, is important to remind yourself that the vast majority of eugenics work has been completely discredited. In the final analysis, the eugenic description of human life reflected and social rather than scientific facts [see http://vector.cshl.org/eugenics/]. Yet how valid is this claim? Is this merely a baseless charge quite typical of contemporary egalitarian political and social prejudices, which continues to fuel the current negative climate of opposition toward eugenics? As behavior genetic research continues to discover year after year how genes influence physical and behavioral traits, the nonscientific academic literature continues to produce antieugenic monographs, which further compound a dense fog of distortions and enduring fables. The paradoxical aspect about modern advances in genetic and bio-medical research is that as the scientific process refines and improves upon recent discoveries in cloning and biotechnology, which moves society that much closer to confronting eugenic-oriented policies, opponents of eugenics continue to proclaim the implausibility of applied eugenic programs. It is like insisting that the earth is really flat despite all the evidence to the contrary from improved navigational and space exploration. Although one could find examples of eugenic ideas from ancient history to modern times, the Victorian scientist and explorer Sir Francis Galton is credited for originating the modern concept of eugenics. …