American geneticists and the eugenics movement: 1905–1935 · American Geneticists and the...

American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement:

1905-1935

KENNETH M. LUDMERER Reed Hall, Johns Hopkins University 1620 McElderry Street, Baltimore, Maryland

INTRODUCTION

Compared to science in previous centuries, one notable aspect of twent ie th-century science is a feeling of social responsibil i ty among m a n y investigators. Not only in the United States, bu t across the world, scientists have spoken out in groups and as individuals to help guide and direct the social applications of their discoveries. Since the 1930's, physicists have expressed concern over the possible misuse of a tomic energy, a concern which has led to the fo rma t ion of the Federat ion of Amer ican Scientists, the British Atomic Scientists ' Association, and similar organizat ions in Japan , m a n y European nat ions, and all the Communi s t countries. 1 Chemists and biochemists for a decade have been debat ing the mora l issues involved in the use of chemical weapons and in spring 1967, led 5000 Ameri- can scientists in pet i t ioning President Johnson to end the product ion of these arms. In publicizing the d ramat ic new vision of m a n ' s fu ture suggested by recent findings in genetics and molecular biology, biologists, too, have openly demanded tha t scientific discoveries be properly applied. In all these cases a scientist 's view of his social responsibili ty migh t be stated as follows: "Since I realize tha t m y science has a funda- men ta l impor tance to cer ta in social or legislative questions, I conceive it as m y responsibil i ty to in form the public of the facts of m y science, or to support the efforts of others who do, so tha t in considering these issues the public m a y be properly informed."

Of these examples of scientists interested in social applica-

1. These organizat ions are discussed in E. H. S. Burhop, "Scientists and Public Affairs," in M. Goldsmith and A. MacKay, ed., Society and Science (New York: Simon and Schuster , 1964).

337

K E N N E T H i~I. LUDI~IEI~ER

tions of their discipline, one of the mos t p rominen t is the case of Amer ican geneticists be tween 1905 and 1935. During those years m a n y geneticists were interested in the issue of whether genetic principles should fo rm the basis of social legislation, and their interest in this issue led them into a considerat ion of the meri ts of the eugenics movement . F rom 1905 to around 1915, m a n y geneticists joined the m o v e m e n t and avidly sup- ported its two-part p rog ram of "negative eugenics," the preven- tion of reproduct ion of those regarded as "unfit," and "positive eugenics," the encouragement of reproduct ion of those considered to be "fit." Largely because geneticists backed the m o v e m e n t at that t ime, it enjoyed extensive public popular i ty and achieved numerous legislative t r iumphs. After approxi- ma te ly 1915, the major i ty of these same geneticists became disenchanted with the m o v e m e n t and dropped out of it. Their abandonmen t came in two stages: f rom 1915 to late 1923 they f requent ly criticized the movement , though usually not harshly; dur ing the next dozen years, they publicly repudiated it. In renouncing the m o v e m e n t in the 1930's, as they did, they helped doom it to extinction.

I t is the purpose of this paper to analyze in detail the views of Amer ican geneticists be tween 1905 and 1935 toward the eugenics m o v e m e n t and, more important , to explain how their interest in the m o v e m e n t developed and changed over time. I shall a t t empt to show tha t their at t i tude toward eugenics was influenced both by scientific developments internal to the science of genetics and by social and political factors external to the science. In this analysis I shall employ a model which I hope will be capable of answer ing the general question of how scientists develop a sense of social responsibility.

The challenge of this pape r is not to "demonst ra te" that both in ternal and external factors molded geneticists ' at t i tudes toward the eugenics movement , which is a ra ther b land s ta tement , but to delineate clearly the respective roles and relative impor tance of these two types of factors. With this in view, I shall a t tempt to prove the following ma jo r points:

First: tha t both the intellectual legacy of Social Darwin ism and cer tain developments within the science of genetics helped initiate geneticists ' interest in eugenics at the t e rm of the century and that of these two types of causes, the external were the general, the in ternal the part icular .

Second: tha t internal factors were pr imar i ly responsible for init iat ing the first phase of geneticists ' wi thdrawal f rom the eugenics movement . To this end, I shall a t t empt to show tha t new findings of heredi ty dam pened the en thus ia sm of m a n y geneticists for the movemen t ; by demons t ra t ing tha t inheri-

338

Amer i can Geneticis ts and the Eugenics Movement

tance is a m u c h more complex process t han had previously been thought , these f indings ind ica ted to m a n y geneticists tha t the task of cons t ruc t ing sound and va luable eugenic schemes is not so simple.

Thi rd : tha t external fac tors were p r imar i ly responsible for t r igger ing the second phase of geneticis ts ' wi thdrawal . I shal l a t t empt to demons t ra te tha t m a n y geneticists , a l a rmed by the movement ' s pa r t i c ipa t ion in the vitriolic debates over immigra t ion res t r ic t ion and by its appa ren t endorsement of the race theories of Naz i Germany , reac ted aga ins t the movemen t by r enunc i a t i ng it.

Before ana lyz ing genet icis ts ' a t t i tudes toward the eugenics movement , i t is essent ia l to real ize tha t any s tudy of a t t i tude fo rma t ion also involves a considera t ion of psychological factors. Thus, under ly ing this h is tor ical inquiry is a psychological a s sumpt ion as to how a m a n can acquire a sense of social responsibi l i ty. In this paper I am mak ing the assumpt ion tha t both object ive evidence and emot ional commi tmen t s are im- po r t an t in the fo rmat ion , ma in t enance , and change of at t i tudes. I t is this psychological a s sumpt ion which under l ies my his- tor ical choice to categorize fac tors as being e i ther " internal" or "external ." I t is not the purpose of this pape r to a t t empt to provide a psychological account of why cer ta in men have predi lec t ions toward social questions, but to begin with m e n who had and f rom here to proceed to describe the nonpsy- chological fac tors tha t inf luenced their views toward the eugenics movement . Such a study, however, is mean ing fu l only wi th the rea l iza t ion tha t at the finest level of analys is psychological quest ions also are re levant .

ENTHUSIASM FOR EUGENICS

F rom approx imate ly 1905 to 1915, numerous Amer ican geneticists were keenly in teres ted in the eugenics movemen t in this country. The three bes t -known leaders of the movement , Char les B. Davenpor t , Har ry H. Laughl in , and Pau l Popenoe, were al l t ra ined geneticists. 2 Every m e m b e r of the first edi-

2. Davenport, Director of the Eugenics Record Office and generally regarded as the leading American eugenicist of the pre-Depression era, w a s

also one of America's prominent biologists and had done important work in the areas of embryology, experimental evolution, and genetics. He was e l e c t e d to the National Academy of Sciences in 1912. Laughlin, Superin- tendent of the Eugenics Record Office and editor of the Eugenical News, was a trained geneticist and a former college instructor of breeding. Popenoe, senior author of one of the most widely read textbooks on eugenics, was a

we]l-known biologist and from 1913 to 1917 edited the Journal of Heredity.

339

K E N N E T H M. L U D M E B E R

torial board of Genetics ( 1 9 1 6 ) - - a group including such re- nowned geneticists as T. H. Morgan, Wil l iam E. Castle, Edwin G. Conklin, Edward M. East, Herber t S. Jennings, and Ray- m o n d Pea r l - -pa r t i c ipa t ed in or gave support to the eugenics m o v e m e n t at some point during the movement ' s early years. Geneticists ' en thus iasm for the m o v e m e n t resulted both f rom external social and intellectual factors and f rom factors internal to their science.

Several aspects of the late n ineteenth-century social and intellectual mil ieu helped establish the context for geneticists ' interest in the topic of eugenics. The mos t impor tan t of these was Social Darwin ism's ideal of searching for biological solutions to social problems. Many early geneticists, par t icular ly the younger m e n who were reared and educated as evolution was winning its victory, openly endorsed this ideal. Underlying their early in- vo lvement with the m o v e m e n t was their confidence that a biological analysis would enable m a n y pressing social problems to be solved. At the turn of the century, m a n y geneticists expressed this view. As the Nobel laureate H. J. Muller wrote, "I have never been interested in genetics purely as an abstraction, but always because of its f u n d a m e n t a l re lat ion to m a n - - h i s characteris t ics and means of self-betterment, which consti tuted the p r imary source of my interest ." a

While their en thus iasm for a sort of "biological sociology" was at the base of m a n y geneticists ' early interest in the eugenics movemen t , other par ts of the nineteenth-century legacy also helped produce their interest. Among these was the f e a r - - q u i t e c o m m o n among nineteenth-century in te l lec tua ls - - that the quality of Amer ican stock was degenerat ing. Geneti- cists, like m a n y the century before, of ten felt tha t the institutions of education, charity, and medicine, by enabl ing less "fit" individuals to survive, were threa tening the future prosperi ty of the Amer ican people. This fea r was heightened by belief in the so-called "differential bir th rate," the theory tha t the "'unfit" procreated fa r more rapidly than the "fit" and hence threatened to dilute the incidence of "valuable" genes in the population. At the turn of the century m a n y geneticists voiced such fears. Perhaps the mos t outspoken was Davenpor t , a m a n resolute

3. H. $. Mul l e r to C. B. D a v e n p o r t , 26 A u g u s t 1918, Cha r l e s B. D a v e n - por t Pape r s , A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l L ibrary . Here a f t e r CBD. For s i m i l a r s t a t e m e n t s by o the r no t ed gene t i c i s t s , see E d w a r d M. Eas t , Mank ind at the Crossroads ( N e w York: C h a r l e s Sc r ibner ' s , 1924) , p. v; Cha r l e s B. D a v e n - port , Heredity in Relation to Eugenics ( N e w York: H e n r y Hol t , 1911) , p. i i i ; E. G. Con ld in , "'Biology a n d D e m o c r a c y , " Scribner's Magazine, 65:404, 1919.

340

American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement

in his belief that true h u m a n progress could result only through improvements in the germ plasm. As he remarked to Charles W. Eliot, then president of Harvard University, "It is my present opinion that advances in medical art, at least, are not working toward the increase in the proportion of men reaching a high level of intellectual or physical capacity. The preserva- tion of 'culls' by modern medicine is possibly, if not probably, pulling down the average faster than the increase in eugenical ideals, leading to an increased production of higher types, can possibly upbuild it. ' '4 During these years Davenport was not alone among geneticists in voicing such fears. ~ Believing that the hereditary quality of the American people was on the decline, they natural ly began thinking about the possibility of instigating eugenic reform.

Many geneticists were also influenced by the common late nineteenth-century view of evolution and eugenics as a secular religion, a view which was popularized by Francis Galton and Karl Pearson, the two leading advocates of eugenic programs in the nineteenth-century English-speaking world. Many early geneticists were influenced by Galton and Pearson and came to feel that the "religion of evolution," as Conklin put it, 6 imposed a moral obligation upon man: that of using his intelligence to guide his future development. Conklin wrote, "The topic [of eugenics] • . . is one in which the bearings of science upon religion are most vital, namely, the origin and destiny of the h u m a n race." 7 Pearl said of eugenics: "Its ideals mus t be introduced into the national conscience like a new religion." s

Thus, the roots of m a n y early American geneticists' interest in the eugenics movement lay in the late nineteenth century. From Social Darwinism they inherited an interest in applying tools of biology to problems of m a n as well as the precedent of biologists of the previous generation, such as Galton and Pearson, who were actively interested in such problems. In addition, geneticists were influenced by the pessimism Social Darwinism had b red- -whi le America was ascending as a world power, m a n y geneticists were concerned with what they considered to be a decline in the quality of American stock. Fur-

4. Charles B. Davenport to Charles W. Eliot, 4 May 1920, CBD. 5. See, for example, Albert F. Blakeslee, "'Corn and Education," 1.

Heredity, 8:57, 1917; E. G. Conklin (written anonymously), "The Future of America: a Biological Forecast," Harper's Magazine, 156:532, 1928; E. G. Conklin, The Direction of Human Evolution (New York: Charles Scribner's, 1921 ), p. viii; East, Mankind, p. vii.

6. Conklin, Human Evolution, p. 237. 7. Ibid., p. vi. 8. Raymond Pearl, "Breeding Better Men," World's Work, 15:9823, 1908.

341

KENNETH M. LUDMEBEI~

thermore, geneticists be tween 1905 and 1915 advocated the s ame solution to these "problems" of d e g e n e r a c y - - a eugenics p r o g r a m - - a s m a n y of the n ine teenth century had done. Even geneticists ' at t i tude toward eugen ic s - - the i r viewing it as a secular r e l i g ion - -was inheri ted f r o m the earlier views of Galton and Pearson.

While the n ine teenth-century legacy set the context for geneticists' early interest in eugenics, wha t permi t ted expression of their interest were developments in ternal to the science of genetics. These developments excited geneticists, for t aken together they suggsted tha t action should be under taken on cer ta in social problems geneticists considered urgent. Geneti- cists were quick to acknowledge the debt that eugenic theory owed to the science of genetics. As Pearl wrote, "We m a y then say that the exper imenta l s tudy of inher i tance in plants and an imals is one of the m a i n foundat ions upon which progress in scientific eugenics m u s t rest. Genetics is at once the guide and support of eugenics. "9 W h a t developed was a c o m m o n hope among m a n y geneticists tha t if these findings could explain the problems, then they migh t ul t imately guide the social and medical r e fo rms necessary to correct them.

The first of these crucial findings was the rediscovery of Mendel 's laws in 1900. By providing a long-sought explanat ion for the t ransmiss ion and distribution of traits determined by single genes f rom one generat ion to the next , Mendel 's laws permit ted geneticists to make predict ions about the n u m b e r and types of offspring to be expected f r o m different types of mat ings . The laws soon made their impac t upon breeding; the imprecise rule that "like produces like" was abandoned, and breeders began bas ing their methods upon quantifiable biological theory. Pleased with results f rom breeding, m a n y geneticists quickly became enthusiast ic about the possibility of extending Mendel 's laws f rom the breeding of plants and animals to that of bet ter h u m a n beings.

A second impor tan t development was the emergence of a belief in the generali ty of single gene (or "uni t") inheri tance, a belief which was c o m m o n among geneticists dur ing the first ten years of the century. Acceptance of the generali ty of this principle was impor tan t to those geneticists interested in eugenics, for it imbued them with confidence in their ability to breed bet ter men. Believing that mos t traits are determined by uni t genes, they felt cer ta in tha t Mendel 's laws explained the t ransmiss ion of a lmost all character is t ics and hence that gen-

9. Raymond Pearl, "Genetics and Eugenics," I. Heredity, 5:388, 1914.

342

American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement

eticists possessed the knowledge to construct sound and valuable eugenic programs. As I shall later discuss in detail, it was only af ter 1915, when most geneticists had abandoned their belief in the generality of unit inheri tance because of its inconsistency with breeding data, that their enthusiasm for eugenics began to wane.

The third impor tant development was the theory of the famed German embryologist and geneticist, August Weismann. In the late 1880's Weismann postulated that the material of the genes is immutable, immune to change f rom environmenta l influences, thereby helping to make untenable the prevailing belief among biologists in the inher i tance of acquired characteristics. This theory eventually had a profound effect upon the social views of geneticists: in acknowledging environmenta l influences to have a negligible effect upon the germ plasm, they became for a time pessimistic about the possibility of improving defective individuals through environmental agencies, a pessimism which heightened their interest in eugenics as a method to improve the race. It was only after 1915, while they were renouncing unit inheri tance, that most geneticists also began recognizing the full importance of envi ronment in development - - a n o t h e r reason why their infa tuat ion with eugenics began to evaporate at that par t icular time.

Thus, discoveries internal to the science of genetics also helped to bring about m a n y early geneticists' involvement with the eugenics movement . At a time when intellectual classes were breaking away f rom rooted traditions, when established fai ths were being critically examined, when religious authori ty was losing its hold upon educated minds, it is not surprising that genetic discoveries had this effect. As the University of Wisconsin's Michael F. Guyer, an impor tant figure in the con- f irmation of Mendelian theory in the first decade of the century, claimed, "Certain definite principles of genetic transmission have been disclosed. And since it is becoming more and more apparent that these hold for m a n as well as for plants and animals in general, we can no longer ignore the social respon- sibilities which the new facts thrust upon us." 10 Similar state- ments are found in the writings and letters of almost every American geneticist of the period interested in eugenics. 11

10. Michael F. Guyer, Being Well-Born (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs- Merrill, 1916), Preface.

11. See, for example, Albert F. Blakeslee, "Corn and Men," J. Heredity, 5:511, 1914; and East, Heredity and Human Affairs ( N e w York: Charles Seribner's, 1927) , p. v. It is significant that genetic findings apparently influenced the social views of English geneticists in the same way. As

343

K E N N E T H M . L U D M E R E R

The role played by genetic findings in producing geneticists' interest in the eugenics movement can be illustrated by exam- ining the nontechnical writings of these men. For example, of the fifteen geneticists of the period who belonged to the Na- tional Academy, two limited their nontechnical writings exclu- sively to the subject of eugenics, and seven others also wrote about more general social or philosophical aspects of science, such as its relation to religion or its place in education; but not a single one wrote all his nontechnical articles on general i s sues - - a fact which suggests that their interest in eugenics s temmed not just f rom a general interest in science's relation to society but f rom elements within genetics itself. Each of these nine had published papers prior to 1900, but they began writing on social topics of any sort only after that da t e - -on ly after modern genetics had been born.

At this time, significantly, there seem to have been no addi- tional factors operating on geneticists to produce their interest in eugenics. Geographical influences apparently played no role. Geneticists interested in social applications of heredity, while coming primarily f rom the Atlantic seaboard and Great Lakes states, were by 1920 found in every other section of the country - - a distribution which parallels that of American geneticists in general at this time. In addition, there was no conceptual category of genetics any more effective than others in producing this interest. Among the prominent eugenicists, for exam- pie, Charles B. Davenport was a Mendelian, Raymond Pearl a biometrician, William E. Castle an animal geneticist, Ed- ward M. East a plant geneticist, and H. J. Webber an experi- menta l breeder. Furthermore, interest in eugenics apparently did not stem from the inttuence of any particular institution or teacher. At Johns Hopkins, for example, certain students of William Keith Brooks, most notably Conklin and Nobel laureate T. H. Morgan, were for a while involved with the eugenics movement , yet others, such as E. B. Wilson, never were. Simi- larly, of Morgan's best-known students at Columbia- -H. J. Muller, A. H. Sturtevant, and Calvin Bridges--Muller and

William Bateson commented (Bateson, The Method and Scope of Genetics [Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1908], pp. 34-35): "So soon as it becomes common knowledge--not philosophical speculation, but a certainty--that liability to a disease, or the power of resisting its attack, addiction to a particular vice, or to superstition, is due to the presence or absence of a specific ingredient, and finally that these characteristics a r e transmitted to the offspring according to definite, predictable rules, then man's view of his own nature, his conception of justice, in short his whole outlook of the world, must be profoundly changed."

344

Amer ican Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement

Stur tevant became interested in h u m a n applicat ions of genetics, while Bridges r ema ined unconcerned. No par t icular religious or fami ly influence seems to have been operat ing either; geneticists of this period, a lmost all of w h o m were Protes tant and descended f rom early Amer ican ancestors, were recipients of a s imilar social and religious heritage.

Thus, developments within genetics provided the immedia te impetus to m a n y geneticists ' interest in the eugenics movement . The percentage of geneticists who became involved with the m o v e m e n t was h i g h - - a p p r o x i m a t e l y fifty percent . As I have ment ioned, n ine of the fifteen geneticists of the period who belonged to the Nat iona l Academy were sufticienfly interested in the issue of eugenics to publish articles on the subject. Forty-two of the one hundred Amer ican geneticists who served in 1928 on the General Commit tee of the In te rna t iona l Con- gress of Genetics had at some t ime been active in the movement . Significantly, not only widely known geneticists were involved with the movemen t , but lesser known m e n as well, m e n of the type who received uns ta r red listings in Cattell 's Amer ican Men of Science. 12 This can best be seen by examin- ing da ta for the period af ter 1915. On the 1929 Advisory Coun- cil of the Amer ican Eugenics Society, in addition to nine s tarred geneticists, there were ten non-s tarred s tudents of heredity. A group of geneticists who wrote s ta tements for a small c ircular entitled "What I Think about Eugenics," publ ished by the Amer ican Eugenics Society in 1925, consisted a lmost evenly of non-s tarred and s tarred scientists. Between 1914 and 1930, articles appear ing in the Journal of Heredity on the sub- jects of immigra t ion , bir th control, and eugenics were wri t ten more f requent ly by non-starred geneticists than by s tarred ones.

Wha t is par t icular ly striking at this t ime is the en thus iasm geneticists displayed toward the eugenics movement . As Pearl r emarked in 1913: "I doubt ff there is any other line of thought or endeavor on which c o m m o n in ternat ional discussion and action can be so well and so profitably brought about as with eugenics. "18 Geneticists" en thus iasm for the m o v e m e n t was

12. A c e r t a i n n u m b e r of m e n i n e a c h sc ient i f ic field ( t h e a c t u a l n u m b e r d e p e n d e d u p o n t he p a r t i c u l a r f ie ld) were dec l a red by Cat te l l to be " s t a r r e d " by v i r tue of a vote of t he sc i en t i s t s t h e m s e l v e s .

13. R a y m o n d P ea r l to C ha r l e s B. D a v e n p o r t , 24 F e b r u a r y 1913, CBD. For o the r e x a m p l e s , see E d w i n G. Conk l in , Heredity and Environment in the Development of Men, 1st ed. ( P r i n c e t o n , N.J. : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1915) , p. vi ; Guyer , Being Well-Born, p. vi i ; C h a r l e s B. D a v e n p o r t to D a v i d Star~ J o r d a n , 24 M a y 1910, CBD.

345

K E N N E T H M . LUDlVIERER

contagious and probably contr ibuted great ly to the rap id r ise in popular i ty the movemen t enjoyed dur ing its first years. 14

Thus, in the per iod be tween 1900 and 1915, a high percent of Amer i can geneticists became in teres ted in the eugenics movement . A la rmed by wha t they considered to be a decline in the hered i ta ry qual i ty of the Amer i can people, they jo ined the movemen t and suppor ted its p rog ram of "positive" and "negative" eugenics in the hope they could help reverse this trend. As a rdent en thus ias t s of the movement , geneticists con- t r ibuted to its surge in popula r i ty and to its in i t ia l legislat ive successes.

The roots of geneticists ' in teres t in the movemen t lay deep in the n ine teen th century. By imbuing them with an interes t in applying scientific tools to problems of man , Social Darwin i sm helped ini t ia te a sense of social responsibi l i ty among them. In addit ion, their conservat ive social assumpt ion tha t economic and social s ta tus indica tes genetic fitness, their pess imis t ic view tha t the Amer ican people were hered i ta r i ly degenera t ing , their p rog ram of posit ive and negat ive eugenics, and their view of eugenics as a "secular r e l i g i o n " - - a l l were inher i ted f rom n ine teen th cen tury biologists and intel lectuals .

While this in te l lec tual and social mil ieu const i tuted the general cause of thei r in teres t in the eugenics movement , discoveries wi th in genetics acted as the immedia t e cause. Genetic f indings served as an organiz ing pr inciple which allowed previous specula t ion on eugenics to be recouched in quantif iable terminology. Impl ic i t in these discoveries, also, was the sug- gestion tha t a na t iona l eugenics p rogram was both feasible and desirable. In ac t ing upon the impl ica t ions of these findings, geneticists were mot iva ted by their a forement ioned social commi tments . This is not to say tha t geneticists al lowed their social commi tmen t s to color their scientific in te rpre ta t ion of the discoveries, which they general ly did not, but to suggest tha t wi th a different set of social commi tmen t s they might have d rawn f rom the discoveries a different set of social conclusions f rom those they in fac t did draw.

14. By 1915 the movement had reached the proportions of a fad. An editorial in the American Breeders" Magazine "Race and Genetics Prob- lems," American Breeders" Magazine, 2:230, 1911) correctly noted that eugenic proposals are "being received more readily among the intelligent and thinking part of the population than the pioneer eugenicists in their fondest hopes have allowed themselves to believe possible." It was around this time the eugenics movement scored its first legislative success. In 1907 the Indiana legislature became the first to pass a sterilization bill based upon "eugenic" principles; by January 1935 25 states had passed similar bills.

346


DISILLUSIONMENT W I T H EUGENICS. STAGE I.

Until a round 1915 geneticists ' en thus iasm for the eugenics m o v e m e n t of ten went unbridled. Between 1908 and 1913, however, there was a series of developments within genetics which placed the eugenics m o v e m e n t in an unexpected light. Taken as a whole, these developments showed that the genetic assumpt ions under ly ing the m o v e m e n t were invalid. By demonst-rating tha t heredi ty was more complex t han had previously been thought , they also indicated tha t the difficulties in applying genetic theories to m a n were correspondingly greater.

In 1908 G. H. Hardy, a British ma themat i c i an , and Wilhelm Weinberg, a G e r m a n physic ian and par t - t ime geneticist, independent ly derived wha t is known today as the Hardy-Weinberg Law, the foundat ion of modern populat ion genetics. This law gives a ma thema t i ca l t r ea tment of gene frequencies in h u m a n populat ions. I t implies, among other things, tha t e l iminat ing a trait f r om a populat ion is an extraordinari ly long and complex process and thus belies eugenicists ' c laims tha t breeding for or against a par t icular trait is an easy task.

In 1909 W. L. Johannsen , a Danish botanis t and geneticist, completed a series of exper iments on garden peas which effec- tively dist inguished be tween inheri ted and noninheri ted variation. Johannsen isolated pure lines of garden peas ( l ines with the same genetic const i tut ion) and tested them for degrees of similarity. Among representat ives f rom different lines he dis- covered a great deal of variation. W h e n he tested individual p lants f r o m the same lines he found no inheri ted var ia t ion but did find m u c h f luctuat ion due to chance env i ronmenta l influences. These results clearly demonst ra ted the sensitivity of genes to env i ronmenta l influences, thereby suggesting tha t deve lopment is de termined not by heredity alone, but by the in teract ion of heredi ty and envi ronment .

Four years later, in 1913, the Amer ican geneticists Edward M. Eas t and Rollins A. Emerson brought together in a classic pape r on maize crucial evidence disproving the generali ty of uni t inheri tance. In this paper , East and Emerson developed the "multiple gene" theory, a theory which explains the genetic basis of the so-called "quanti tat ive," or "metrical ," characters (charac ters , such as height and intelligence in man , which are differences along cont inuous scales of m e a s u r e m e n t ) . Accord- ing to this theory, the development of "quanti tat ive" traits is de te rmined by the interact ion of m a n y g e n e s - - w i t h each other and with the envi ronment . As geneticists began to accept this theory, they came to realize tha t Mendel 's laws describe the

347

K E N N E T H M. L U D M E B E R

p a t t e r n of i n h e r i t a n c e of re la t ive ly few t r a i t s - - a r ea l i za t ion wh ich showed one of the m a j o r genet ic a s s u m p t i o n s under ly - Lug n e a r l y all eugen ic proposals of the per iod to be inval id .

These genet ic f indings , then , i nd ica ted t ha t ear l ier views of i n h e r i t a n c e h a d b e e n oversimplif ied, a n d as a resu l t eugen ic a s s u m p t i o n s abou t he red i ty were seen to be inval id . 1~ A r o u n d the ou tb reak of the F i r s t Wor ld War , genet icis ts , as they came to accept these f ind ings , b e g a n to d isp lay a n al tered a t t i tude toward the eugen ics m o v e m e n t . Aware of the complexi ty of i n h e r i t a n c e , they b e g a n to feel tha t eugen ic p r o g r a m s were scient i f ical ly unfeas ib le , a n d the i r e n t h u s i a s m for the move- m e n t b e g a n to dull . I n 1913, for example , A. F. Blakeslee, whose resea rches on the p l a n t Datura provided ins igh t in to several f u n d a m e n t a l genet ic m e c h a n i s m s , d iscussed how the n e w genet ic f ind ings affected his v iew of the m o v e m e n t . Realiz- i ng t ha t e n v i r o n m e n t as well as he red i ty is i m p o r t a n t i n deve lopmen t , the eugen ic goal b e g a n to seem to h i m a d i s t a n t ideal. He w a r n e d tha t "in the g a r d e n of h u m a n life as i n the g a r d e n of corn, success is the r e s u l t a n t complex of the two factors , e n v i r o n m e n t a n d heredi ty ." As a resul t , he fel t t ha t society could be improved by n o n e u g e n i c m e a n s a nd w a r n e d aga ins t i n t e m p e r a t e l y c a m p a i g n i n g for legis la t ion. He wrote : "The e n t h u s i a s m , however , wi th wh ich some would thought- lessly r u s h in to eugen ics a n d eugen ic leg is la t ion shows tha t they m a y s t a n d i n d a n g e r of h a v i n g the n e w l ight [discovery of the i m p o r t a n c e of he red i ty i n deve lopment ] b l i nd the i r eyes to the in f luence of e n v i r o n m e n t as a fac tor to be considered." 16 Such examples are n u m e r o u s . 17

15. In addition to these developments in genetics, an important development in psychology also helped to discredit eugenic assumptions about heredity. In 1919 the United States Army released the results of the intelligence tests it had given inductees during the war. Out of the 1.7 million inductees given the Binet Test, 47 percent of Caucasians and 86 percent of Negroes were found by eugenic standards to be feebleminded. These absurdly high figures suggested correctly that the test had made no provision for the different backgrounds of those who took it, thereby underscoring the fact that raw intelligence scores reflect the individual's training. However, since geneticists had already been shown by the afore- mentioned genetic findings that eugenic programs were based on scientific misjudgments, they did not need these results from psychology to convince them of that fact. Of the geneticists I studied, Castle was the only one who made direct reference to these tests. (William E. Castle, "'Eugenics,'" Encyclopedia Britannica, 13th ed. [1926], pp. 1031-1032.) While the tests constituted a dramatic refutation of certain eugenic tenets, evidently they primarily influenced the general public rather than the community of geneticists.

16. Blakeslee, 1. Heredity, 5, p. 518. 17. For other examples, see E. G. Conklin, "Heredity and Responsibility,"

348

Amer i can Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement

Thus, p rompted by cer ta in discoveries wi th in genetics, m a n y genet icis ts began to voice their d i s enchan tmen t wi th the eugenics movement . I t is impor t an t to realize, however, tha t th roughout Wor ld W a r I and for a t ime after , geneticists ra re ly cri t icized the movemen t harshly . In the ear ly 1920's, for example, E a s t - - w h i l e sharp ly cr i t ic izing cer ta in eugenic proposals - - s t i l l dec lared the movemen t to represent "a cause funda- men ta l ly good," 18 and such noted geneticists as T. H. Morgan, W. E. Castle, E. M. East, H. S. Jennings , and Raymond Pear l cont inued to pa r t i c ipa te in var ious eugenic congresses and meet ings. ~9

I t is also impor t an t to real ize tha t af ter the war the ranks of the genet icis ts became divided on the subject of the eugenics movement . Despite mos t genet icis ts ' growing d is i l lus ionment with the movement , a smal l number , the most noted of whom was Davenport , even in the 1920's, m a i n t a i n e d an undimin- ished en thus i a sm for eugenics. Undaun ted by the impl ica t ions of the work of Johannsen and of East and Emerson, these m e n would not be shaken f rom their or iginal convict ion tha t long-run improvement s in society could resul t only f rom improvements in its germ p l a s m - - t h a t '¢heredity," as Davenpor t put it, "s tands as the one great hope of the h u m a n race; its savior f rom imbeci l i ty , poverty, disease, immoral i ty . "2o Even though mos t genet icis ts who had previously backed the move- m e n t were losing en thus i a sm for it, these m e n cont inued their efforts to popular ize it. Af ter Wor ld W a r I, when immigra- t ion to the Uni ted States was beg inn ing to soar, these same m e n took conservat ive posi t ions on quest ions of race and immigra t ion .

W h a t d is t inguishes these two groups of geneticists is tha t those who unreservedly cont inued to endorse the eugenics

Science, 37:48, 52, 1913; T. H. Morgan to C. B. Davenport, 18 January 1915, CBD; T. H. Morgan to William Bateson, 17 April 1920, CBD; R. C. Punnett, "Eliminating Feeblemindedness," J. Heredity, 8: 464, 1917; Castle, Britannica, p. 1031; Castle, Genetics and Eugenics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1924), p. 374-375. Punnett criticizes eugenicists for ignoring the Hardy-Weinberg Law; the others criticize eugeniclsts for ignoring either the multiple gene theory or the importance of environment in development.

18. East, Mankind, p. vi. 19. Davenport's correspondence includes numerous discussions with

noted geneticists concerning their participation in various eugenic meetings. For example, see H. S. Jennings to Davenport, 27 April 1923; Davenport to T. H. Morgan, 13 April 1917; Raymond Pearl to Davenport, 30 December 1920; all CBD.

20. Cited by Charles E. Rosenberg, "'Charles Benedict Davenport and the Beginning of Human Genetics," Bull. Hist. Med., 35:269, 1961.

349


m o v e m e n t n e v e r f u l l y a c c e p t e d t h e m u l t i p l e g e n e t h e o r y o r t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f e n v i r o n m e n t i n d e v e l o p m e n t , n o r to m y k n o w l - e d g e d i d t h e y e v e r m a k e m e n t i o n o f t h e H a r d y - W e i n b e r g L a w . 21 A t t h e r o o t o f t h e i r d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e s e l a t e r f i n d i n g s w i t h i n g e n e t i c s w e r e b o t h s c i e n t i f i c a n d n o n - s c i e n t i f i c f a c t o r s . T h e e x a m p l e o f P o p e n o e , w h o s e w r i t i n g s d e m o n s t r a t e g r e a t e r d e v o - t i o n to c o n s e r v a t i v e s o c i a l a s s u m p t i o n s t h a n to s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h , 22 s u g g e s t s t h a t s o m e g e n e t i c i s t s w e r e m o t i v a t e d to d i s r e g a r d t h e s e t h e o r i e s o f h e r e d i t y b y s o c i a l p r e j u d i c e s a n d t h a t s u c h m e n u s e d t h e e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t a s a s c i e n t i f i c g u i s e f o r t h e i r r a c i a l , c l a s s , o r r e l i g i o u s b i a s . T h e e x a m p l e o f D a v e n p o r t , w h o c o n s i d e r e d t h e t h e o r i e s to b e s c i e n t i f i c a l l y u n p r o v e d a n d w h o s e w r i t i n g s g e n e r a l l y l a c k e d t h e h o s t i l i t y t o w a r d m i n o r i t i e s ex - p r e s s e d b y P o p e n o e , 23 s u g g e s t s t h a t s o m e w e r e m e n w h o s i m p l y w e r e n o t a l w a y s c r i t i c a l i n m a k i n g s c i e n t i f i c j u d g m e n t s .

21. Davenport , for example, despite his close contact wi th m a n y of those doing research in quant i ta t ive inher i tance , r emained s teadfast in his view tha t "most character is t ics are, or may be resolved into, e lementary uni ts ." Unt i l his death in 1944, he was assigning un i t gene de te rminants to such varied and complex trai ts as stature, t emperament , intell igence, and men ta l illness. Similarly, Popenoe was resolute in his belief tha t an individual ' s impor tan t characteris t ics , physical and menta l , are determined by heredi ty ra ther t h a n by env i ronmenta l forces. "'We are fa r f rom denying tha t nu ture has an influence on nature ," he wrote in 1915, "but we believe tha t the influence of nur ture , the envi ronment , is only a fifth or perhaps a t en th tha t of na tu re - -he red i ty . " (Carnegie Ins t i tu t ion of Wash- ington Yearbook, 1906, p. 94; "Nature or Nutu re?" 1. Heredity, 6:227, 1915). Wi th respect to such factors as location t ra in ing and family background, this minori ty group of geneticists is indis t inguishable f rom the group which was growing unhappy wi th the movement . Davenport , for example, of early Amer ican Protes tant ancestry, had been a s tudent of the same teacher, E. L. Mark, at the same university, Harvard, as had Jenn ings and Castle.

22. In his best-known work, Applied Eugenics, Popenoe openly preached racis t views. Wi th little evidence, he expressed his view in this book tha t "not only is the Negro different f rom the white, but he is in the large eugenically inferior to the white." Again, "The ability of a colored m a n is proport ionate to the amount of whi te blood he has.'" He added, "The color l ine therefore exists only as the resul t of race experience. This fac t alone is sufficient to suggest tha t one should not dismiss i t l ightly as the outgrowth of bigotry. Is i t not perhaps a social adapta t ion wi th survival value?" (Pau l Popenoe and Roswell H. Johnson, Applied Eugenics. [New York: Mac- mil lan, 1926], pp. 285, 188,280. )

23. Davenport ' s objections to the theories were at least part ial ly en- tangled wi th his mis t aken skepticism toward the chromosome theory of heredity, wh ich even in 1921 he fel t "will require a good deal of work yet before i t can be adopted generally." As a sincere ( i f at t imes uncr i t ica l ) investigator, his s ta tements on eugenics were usually marked wi th caut ion and tolerance. He cont inual ly ut tered warn ings to those less cautious eugenicists zealously campaign ing for legislation to first accumulate evidence and only then to a t tempt to pass legislation. I t is s ignificant t ha t he was greatly a la rmed at the racis t and propagandis t e lements which in the

3 5 0

A m e r i c a n Genet ic i s t s and the E u g e n i c s M o v e m e n t

D u r i n g W o r l d W a r I the spl i t b e t w e e n the l a r g e r body of genet ic i s t s , w h o w e r e los ing e n t h u s i a s m for eugen ics , and the less c au t i ous eugen ic i s t s was n o t ye t comple te . M a n y r e spec t ed gene t ic i s t s h a d no t ye t who l ly accep ted the n e w f indings. Guyer , fo r e x a m p l e , in 1916 stil l f e l t t h a t he r ed i t y was five to t en t imes m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n e n v i r o n m e n t and doub ted tha t the m u l t i p l e gene t heo ry was s igni f icant . 24 In addi t ion , the prob- l e m s of the w a r were i m m e d i a t e and p ress ing ; i ssues of eugen i c s ign i f i cance t e m p o r a r i l y lost the i r i m p o r t a n c e to m a n y genet i - cists. By the e n d of the war , h o w e v e r , the i n t e l l ec tua l spl i t b e t w e e n the body of gene t ic i s t s and m o s t eugen ic i s t s h a d be- c o m e comple te . T h e ro le of e n v i r o n m e n t in d e v e l o p m e n t h a d b e e n f i rmly es tab l i shed , as h a d the m u l t i p l e gene theory and the H a r d y - W e i n b e r g L a w ; w h e r e a s a l m o s t all c o m p e t e n t gen- e t ic is ts a c k n o w l e d g e d these theor ies , m o s t eugen ic i s t s did not . Gene t ic i s t s ' i n t e re s t in the s tudy of h u m a n gene t ics h a d no t je l led. The bes t m i n d s w o r k i n g in gene t ics were l a rge ly in ter - es ted in the gene ra l p h e n o m e n a of i n h e r i t a n c e , no t in the i r exp re s s ion in specif ic species. Gene t ic i s t s s tud ied m a i n l y l ower o r g a n i s m s ; the r e s e a r c h s t ra tegy they fe l t p rov ided t h e m the bes t poss ible e x p e r i m e n t a l resul ts , z~ I t was s ign i f i can t w h e n J e n n i n g s , o f fe red the p r e s i d e n c y of the A m e r i c a n E u g e n i c s Socie ty in 1926, dec l ined so tha t he could devo te his t ime to l abo ra to ry r e sea rch . ~6

1920's pervaded the eugenics movement, and he once commented sadly, "It is very surprising to see how conclusions of great social import are issued and accepted on wholly unscientific bases." As a matter of personal policy, he found it desirable "'to decline to associate myself with any sort of propaganda, even propaganda on eugenics" (C. B. Davenport to William Bateson, 9 February 1921; Davenport to Sewall Wright, 16 November 1932; Davenport to Mrs. E. M. East, 10 November 1916; all CBD) .

24. Guyer, Being Wel l -Born , pp. 295--296, and chap. 3. 25. For discussions of these attitudes of geneticists toward human

genetics, see Curt Stern, "Mendel and Human Genetics," Proc. A m e r . Phil . So t . , 109:216, 1965; and Laurence H. Snyder, "Old and New Pathways in Human Genetics," in L. C. Dunn (ed.), Genet ics in the T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y (New York: Macmillan, 1951 ), p. 370.

26. C. B. Davenport to H. S. Jennings, 14 June 1926; H. S. Jennings to C. B. Davenport, 16 June 1926; both CBD. Jennings, like many other geneticists of the period, felt a conflict between the time-devouring demands of experimental investigation and his desire to popularize the science and write on its social implications. Although he devoted considerable time to writing nontechnical articles addressed to the lay public, he was beseiged by more requests for articles and speeches than he could possibly handle. In response to repeated requests for such articles by G. D. Eaton, editor of Plaintall¢, Jennings wrote, "I a m not primarily a writer, but an experi- menter." Again: "It is mainly only when I see a place where there is a great need for setting forth what are the results of investigation that I try to do any writing of a general character--as in "Prometheus." Although he participated in the campaign to oppose immigration restriction legislation, h e c o u l d n o t devote himself fully to this cause because of a "heavy

351


Thus, during the war years the majori ty of American geneticists began to lose enthusiasm for the eugenics movement , a phenomenon which was prompted by their realization that cur- rent genetic knowledge promised no quick hereditary improvement of the h u m a n race. This represented the first of two stages in their complete withdrawal f rom the eugenics movement. Despite their criticism of its scientific inadequacies, most geneticists remained members of the movement and did not publicly condemn it; a few, such as Davenport and Pop- enoe, even mainta ined their original enthusiasm. However, the stage was now set for the second and more serious phase of their withdrawal.

D I S I L L U S I O N M E N T W I T H EUGENICS. STAGEII.

After World War I had ended, several factors contributed to a heightened concern with racial questions among m a n y Americans. Immigrat ion, which had virtually ceased during the war, began to rise as shipping once again became available to transport civilians. Many Americans who, during the war, had only abstract notions of immigrants now found themselves encountering them in everyday life. In the post-war mood of isolation there was a general distrust and fear of anything for- eign. Accompanying this isolationist fervor of the 1920's was a strong undercurrent of anti-Semitic feeling which singled out the Jew for scorn from other new immigrant groups. A wave of post-war labor riots, in which immigrants played a significant role, intensified the racial unrest of many Americans. The Laughlin Report in 1922, 27 which concluded that "the recent immigrants as a whole present a higher percentage of inborn socially inadequate qualities than do the older stocks," gave an unofficial government sanction to this view. Immigrants and colored races had performed relatively poorly on the first Stan- ford-Binet intelligence test in 1916, a fact racists promptly seized as "proof" of the inherently weak mental capacities of these groups. Anthropology at this time was providing little evidence to counter racist propaganda; anthropologists had not yet reached a consensus as to what constitutes a racial trait, and they had not yet begun to appreciate the relevance of gen-

campaign of work in experimental breeding of lower organisms." (H. S. Jennings to G. D. Eaton, 31 October 1927; H. S. Jennings to G. D. Eaton, 28 April 1927; H. S. Jennings to Theodora Jacobs, 26 March 1924; all from Herbert S. Jennings Papers, American Philosophical Society Library. Here- after cited as HSJ.)

27. Analysis of America's Melting Pot. Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 66th Cong., 3rd Sess. Serial 7-C, pp. 725--831, Washington, D.C. 1923.

352

A m e r i c a n Gene t ic i s t s and the E u g e n i c s M o v e m e n t

e t ic f ind ings fo r the i r o w n work. 2s I n th is socia l con tex t , the e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t u n d e r w e n t a d r a m a t i c two-par t c h a n g e i n tone , a t r ans i t i on w h i c h p r o m p t e d a second and m o r e i n t ense p h a s e of gene t ic i s t s ' w i t h d r a w a l f r o m it.

As the i n t e l l e c tua l spl i t b e t w e e n gene t ic i s t s and eugen ic i s t s was comple t ed , the e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t to a m u c h g rea te r de- gree t h a n be fo re c a m e to be led by m e n m a k i n g r a s h and p r e t e n t i o u s c l a ims about the p o w e r of hered i ty . T h e v i e w some of these m e n he ld of i n h e r i t a n c e was a s t o n i s h i n g in its na ive t6 . To quo te one of the m o v e m e n t ' s n e w "prophe t s , " W. E. D. Stokes, a w e l l - k n o w n horse b r eede r and e u g e n i c i s t : "The re is no t roub le to b reed any k i n d of m e n you l ike, 4 f ee t m e n or 7 f ee t m e n - - o r , fo r i n s t ance , al l to w e i g h 60 or 400 pounds , j u s t as we b reed horses . "29 Such c l a ims were based u p o n eugen ic i s t s ' na~'ve and u n c r i t i c a l v i e w of the p h e n o m e n o n of i n h e r i t a n c e : they p l aced f a r too m u c h conf idence i n the influence of the genes , and they were o v e r e a g e r to f ind the 3 : 1 M e n d e l i a n ra t io in al l the t ra i t s they cons idered .

This f irst t r an s i t i on in the m o v e m e n t was a c c o m p a n i e d by a s e c o n d - - i t s p e r v a s i o n by rac i s t s eu log iz ing the eugen ic m e r i t s of i m m i g r a t i o n res t r ic t ion . Af t e r i m m i g r a t i o n to the U n i t e d Sta tes b e g a n to skyrocket , r ac i s t s a n d res t r ic t ion is t s , a l a r m e d by w h a t they cons ide r ed to be " in fe r io r" n e w c o m e r s , 30 t u r n e d to the e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t , w h e r e they f o u n d a scient i f ic sanc- t ua ry to a i r t he i r p re jud ices . 31

28. Geneticists themselves occasionally expressed disappointment at anthropologists' ignorance of their work. As Davenport once remarked, "'I think the future will find it almost inexplicable that now, 15 years after the proper way of looking at heredity and 'species' or 'races" has been made clear there are not half a dozen anthropologists who make use of the new point of view" (C. B. Davenport to Alex Hrdlicka, 5 May 1915, CBD).

29. Eugenical News, 2:13, 1917. 30. Eugenicists, themselves generally of Anglo-Saxon stock, not sur-

prisingly entertained an extraordinarily high opinion of their own pedi- grees. Eugenicist David Start Jordan at one time commented, "Any healthy New England family, which can show its connection with England can also show its connection with most of the nobility of England, and with royal families of all the world except China and Patagonia" (David Start Jordan to Charles B. Davenport, 20 March 1911, CBD).

31. Probably the most influential of such men was Madison Grant, Vice- President of the Immigration Restriction League and an avid eugenicist, who served as president of the Eugenics Research Association (1919), as treasurer of the Second International Congress of Eugenics (New York, 1919), and as member of the Board of Directors of the American Eugenics Society. His most important book, The Passing of the Great Race (1916), lauded by eugenicists, was perhaps the most uncompromising and aggres- sive plea for the maintenance of a Protestant and "Nordic" America ever published.

353


In the years following the war, the eugenics movement con- tinued to acquire more and more of a racist guise. In the 1920's this was seen most clearly in the movement 's participation in the controversy over immigrat ion restriction. Believing that recent waves of immigrants consisted primarily of people of poor hereditary stock whose inferior blood threatened to swamp the "native" Americans, eugenicists opposed immigrat ion and campaigned for its restriction. The arguments of eugenicists swayed many, among whom was Representative Albert John- son of Washington, sponsor of the 1924 Immigrat ion Restriction Act, a man known for his enthusiastic endorsement of eugenic pleas for restricting immigration. 32

With the impending passage of the Immigrat ion Restriction Act, geneticists' unhappiness with the eugenics movement entered a second stage. They were dismayed by the distorted image of genetics that eugenicists were popularizing and they were not willing to permit the movement to pervert their science for the advancement of racist goals. Accordingly, they began to repudiate eugenics. In late 1923 and early 1924, m a n y noted gene t ic i s t s - -among whom were H. S. Jermings, R. Pearl, Vernon Kellogg, E. Carleton MacDowell, and Samuel J. Holmes ---began correspondence over the immigrat ion issue, express- ing their common fear that restrictive legislation might pass. They were not necessarily against the idea of restricting immigration, since they realized that this could be one means of combating overpopulation in the country, but they were against the pending legislation, which, they felt, was based upon a distorted version of genetics and was accentuat ing racial en- mities. As Pearl lamented to Jennings:

Without having gone at all deeply into the matter, I have had a strong feeling that the reactionary group led by Madi- son Grant and with Laughlin as its chief spade worker were likely, in their zeal for the Nordic, to do a great deal of real harm. So far as I can learn, there is no other group which makes the least pretension to being scientific which is interesting itself in any practical way in this pending immigrat ion legislation. From what I hear, I judge that the opinions of Congressmen generally regarding this group is that it is the only one which has any scientific knowledge about immigration. 33

32. Johnson in the 1920's h a d c lose c o n n e c t i o n s w i t h m a n y eugenicists. He spoke highly of Grant's Passing of the Great Race, frequently quoting the book on the floor of Congress , and also of Laughlin's report. In 1923, in recognition of his m a n y "services" to the cause of eugen ics , h e w a s e lected h o n o r a r y president of the Eugenics Research Assoc ia t ion .

33. Raymond Pearl to Herbert S. Jennings, 24 November 1923, HS].

354

A m e r i c a n Gene t i c i s t s a n d the E u g e n i c s M o v e m e n t

As the m o v e m e n t ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to t he r e s t r i c t i o n c a m p a i g n i n c r e a s e d , m a n y gene t i c i s t s b e g a n to c r i t ic ize i t pub l i c ly , ex- p o s i n g the f a l s e b io logy a t i t s ba se ; a n d a l m o s t a l l of t he se m e n a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t w i th the m o v e m e n t to i ts ac t iv i t i e s d u r i n g the r e s t r i c t i o n deba te s . F o r e x a m p l e , H e r b e r t S. J e n n i n g s , a f i r s t - ra te gene t i c i s t w h o a f t e r W o r l d W a r I b e c a m e one of A m e r i c a ' s f o r e m o s t expos i t o r s of a p p l y i n g on ly s o u n d b io logy to h u m a n af fa i rs , i n h i s w ide - se l l i ng P r o m e t h e u s

c r i t i c i zed e u g e n i c i s t s s eve re ly fo r s p r e a d i n g a d o c t r i n e b a s e d u p o n o u t m o d e d p r i n c i p l e s of b io logy. He s t a t e d :

K n o w l e d g e h a s m o v e d r a p i d l y a n d h a s , i nde e d , c h a n g e d f u n d a m e n t a l l y w i t h i n the l a s t t en yea r s , a l t e r i n g the p i c t u r e as to the r e l a t i o n s of h e r e d i t y a n d e n v i r o n m e n t . W h a t h a s go t t en in to p o p u l a r c o n s c i o u s n e s s as M e n d e l i s m - - s t f l l p re- s e n t e d in the c o n v e n t i o n a l b io log ica l g o s p e l s - - h a s b e c o m e g ro t e sque ly i n a d e q u a t e a n d m i s l e a d i n g .

H e p a r t i c u l a r l y b e m o a n e d the use of f a l s e b io logy to j u s t i f y r a c i s t p r o p a g a n d a in the d e b a t e s over i m m i g r a t i o n :

The s a m e f a l l a c y [ t ha t w h a t e v e r is h e r e d i t a r y is f ixed a n d u n c h a n g e a b l e ] r e a p p e a r s in d i s c u s s i o n s of r a c i a l p r o b l e m s . T h e r e c e n t i m m i g r a n t s in to the U n i t e d S ta t e s show c e r t a i n p r o p o r t i o n s of de fec t ive a n d d i s e a s e d p e r s o n s ; a n d we a re i n f o r m e d t h a t " these de f ic ienc ies a r e u n c h a n g e a b l e a n d t h a t h e r e d i t y wi l l p a s s t h e m on to a f u t u r e g e ne ra t i on . " T h e r e is no w a r r a n t in the s c i ence of gene t i c s fo r such a s t a t e m e n t ; u n d e r n e w cond i t i ons , t hey m a y no t a p p e a r . . . W e a re w a r n e d n o t to a d m i t to A m e r i c a c e r t a i n pe op l e s n o w differ- i ng f r o m ourse lves on the bas i s of the r e s o u n d i n g a s s e r t i o n t h a t b io logy i n f o r m s us t h a t the e n v i r o n m e n t c a n b r i n g ou t n o t h i n g w h a t e v e r b u t the h e r e d i t a r y c h a r a c t e r s . Such a n as- s e r t i on is p e r f e c t l y e m p t y a n d idle. 34

Thus , in the m i d d l e a n d l a t e 1920's , d i s m a y e d a t e uge n i c i s t s ' d i s t o r t i on of t he i r s c i ence to j u s t i f y the I m m i g r a t i o n Res t r ic -

34. Herbert S. Jennings, Prometheus (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1925), pp. 11, 65-66. Similar views were expressed by: H. S. Jennings, "'Un- desirable Aliens," The Survey, 51:311, 1923; East, Mankind, Preface; T. H. Morgan, Evolution and Genetics (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton Univer- sity Press, 1925), Preface and last chapter; Castle, Britannica, p. 1031; Raymond Pearl, "The Biology of Superiority," American Mercury, 12:266, 1927. It is interesting to note how dramatically the attitudes of these geneticists toward the eugenics movement had changed. Pearl, for example, whose enthusiasm for eugenics before the war had seemingly been bound- less, now was of the view that "it would seem to be high time that eugenics cleaned house, and threw away the old-fashioned rubbish which has ac- cumulated in the attic" (Pearl, American Mercury, p. 266).

355

KENNETH M. I, UDMERER

tion Act of 199.4, m a n y geneticists publicy began to condemn the movement . At this point it is impor tant to reflect on why they became so embit tered against it. Two factors stand out. First, the racial hostility engendered by the movement r an counter to ma ny geneticists' strong feelings of compassion and unders tanding for their fellow man. 3~ In addition, eugenicists' uncrit ical interpretat ion of genetic findings was incompatible with geneticists' view of the importance of critically and objec- tively evaluating scientific evidence, regardless of the conclusions favored. Thus, eugenicists offended both geneticists' sense of fair play and their concept of legitimate scientific research. The geneticists' strong react ion against the movement can best be understood in this light.

In the 1930's geneticists' react ion against the eugenics movement reached its climax. In this decade their fears of racism increased as they witnessed the Nazis espouse a creed of Aryan puri ty and superiority and a morbid fascinat ion with health, biological fitness, and h u m a n breeding. As geneticists became distrustful of the Nazis, they became more and more hostile toward the American eugenics movement . They had good reason to view the American movement with suspicion, since m a ny American eugenicists had been forthr ight in their praise of German "eugenic" measures. Paul Popenoe, for example, thought highly of the Nazi sterilization program; Lothrop Stoddard, another prominent eugenicist, once described a German sterilization hear ing and recorded his admirat ion for the Ger- m a n emphasis upon biological fitness. 86 Fearing another Germany, m a ny geneticists in the mid-1930's completed their renunciat ion of the eugenics movement . To underscore this impor tant point, it is worth quoting L. C. Dunn, a Columbia University geneticist, in detail:

With genetics [eugenics'] relations have always been close, al though there have been distinct signs of cleavage in recent years, chiefly due to the feeling on the par t of many geneticists that eugenical research was not always activated by purely disinterested scientific motives, but was influenced by social and political considerations tending to bring about

35. J enn ings , par t icular ly , w a s k n o w n for h i s h u m a n i t a r i a n i s m . For an example of w h y he w a s so regarded, see Independent Woman, to Herber t S. J enn ings , 9 Feb rua ry 1934, HSJ.

36. For a reveal ing letter on Popenoe 's endo r semen t of Nazi eugenic schemes , see Pau l Popenoe to L. C. D u n n , 22 J a n u a r y 1934, Leslie C. Durra Papers , Amer i can Phi losophica l Library. Hereaf te r cited as LCD. Lothrop Stoddard, Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today ( N e w York: DueU, Sloan, & Pearce, 1940), pp. 179 ft.

356


too rapid applicat ion of incompletely proved theses . . . I have just observed in Germany some of the consequences

of revers ing the order as be tween p rog ram and discovery. The incomplete knowledge of today, m u c h of it based on a theory of the state which has been influenced by the racial , class, and religious prejudices of the group in power, has been emba lmed in law, and the avenues to improvemen t in the techniques of improving the populat ion have been com- pletely closed. Although some progress m a y be made in re- ducing the proport ion of those e lements which are undesirable to the regime, the cost appears to be t remendous. The genealogical record offices have become powerfu l agencies of the state, and medical judgments even when possible, appear to be subservient to political purposes. Apar t f rom the injustices in individual cases, and the loss of personal liberty, the solution of the whole eugenic problem by fiat e l iminates any ra t ional solution by free compet i t ion of ideas and evidence. Scientific progress in general seems to have a very dark future. Altho m u c h of this is due to the dictator- ship, it seems to i l lustrate the dangers which all p rograms run which are not cont inual ly responsive to new knowledge, and should certainly s t rengthen the resolve which we generally have in the U.S. to keep all agencies which contr ibute to such questions as free as possible f rom c o m m i t m e n t to fixed p r o g r a m s Y

The geneticists ' repudiat ion of the m o v e m e n t in the 1930's took m a n y forms. Some, such as Dunn, individually spoke out against the movement . In 1933, geneticists ' d i smay with the G e r m a n si tuat ion helped instigate a shake-up in the editorial policies of the Journal of Heredity, which unti l then had been publ ishing m a n y uncri t ical articles favorable toward eugenics. Throughout the 1930's, numerous gene t ic i s t s - - inc luding Curt Stern, A. F. Shull, A. F. Blakeslee, R. A. Emerson, C. H. Dan- forth, L. C. Dunn, Laurence H. Snyder, Sewall Wright, Barbara McClintock, Raymond Pearl, and L. J. Co l e - -we re working for the Amer ican Commit tee for Displaced G e r m a n Scholars, an organizat ion a t tempt ing to relocate displaced G e r m a n aca- demians in Amer ican institutions, as In 1939 the Seventh In-

37. L. C. D u n n to J o h n Merr iam, 3 Ju ly 1935, LCD. 38. The D u n n Papers provide a po i gnan t account of the h u m a n prob lems

involved in the re locat ion of displaced G e r m a n scholars. The Commit tee w a s conf ron ted by a conflict be tween its h u m a n i t a r i a n goal of a iding the re fugees and the prac t ica l cons idera t ion of h o w not to stifle Amer i can scho la r sh ip by offering pos i t ions to G e r m a n s r a t he r t h a n to young Ameri- cans . The Commit tee ' s compromise w a s usua l ly to try to find pos i t ions

357

KENNETH M. LUDMERER

ternat ional Genetics Congress at Edinburgh made an official condemnat ion of eugenics, racism, and Nazi doctrines. 39 Not surprisingly, geneticists ' renuncia t ion of the eugenics move- m e n t at this t ime contr ibuted to the movement ' s u l t imate down- fall.

Thus, in the 1930's, repelled by the Hitler regime, m a n y geneticists completed their reconsiderat ion of the eugenics movement . Alarmed by the way the Nazis put genetics to use in Germany, they resolved to p revent any such tragedy in this country. To geneticists, the Amer ican movement , with leaders such as Popenoe, Stoddard, and Grant , seemed to smack too m u c h of a Nazi b rand of racism. No longer tolerant of the movement ' s inade~luacies, m a n y geneticists publicly repudiated eugenics.

Significantly, while they were renouncing the eugenics move- m e n t in the 1930's, geneticists for the first t ime mani fes ted a sense of social responsibili ty in its modern form. I t is again worth quoting Dunn in detail:

The effects of this knowledge [genetic science] upon society have been quite different in different countries. The demonst ra t ion that cer ta in differences between individuals are influenced by heredity and hence by ancest ry has led in Germany to the promulga t ion and enforcement of laws re- quiring the e l iminat ion of persons with cer tain characteris t ics f rom the breeding population. I f you live in Ge rmany you can be haled before a court and sentenced to be sterilized for any one of a n u m b e r of offenses commit ted when you chose your a n c e s t o r s . . .

In our own country the immigra t ion quotas were set some t ime ago af ter hear ings at which alleged men ta l differences between European races, p resumably of a genetic and therefore p e r m a n e n t character , played a large par t in determin- ing a policy which has guided our democracy for twenty years.

W h a t can science do for democracy? I t can tell the people the t ru th about such misuses of the prestige of science; the facts in these cases did not m a t t e r - - t h e y were opposed to the pract ice which resulted, but not enough people knew them well enough or lacked the courage to make them known.

for re fugees w h i c h Amer i cans would not have filled anyway. This com- p romise w a s of ten emot ional ly t ry ing for the refugees , however , since m a n y m e n who had been leading scholars in G e rm any had to be con ten t w i th obscure and u n i m p o r t a n t posi t ions in America.

39. Ru th Benedict, Race: Science and Politics ( N e w York: Viking Press, 1943), pp. 264-266.

358


Since the people have come to accept p ronouncements m a d e in the n a m e of science, chiefly I think because of the prest ige gained through mater ia l and technological advances made possible through science, it behooves scientists to be aware of the responsibil i ty which this t rust and support implies. ~o

Referr ing back to the discussion which began this paper , Dunn ' s speech clearly represents an explicit s t a tement of social responsibil i ty in its m ode rn form, a s t a tement tha t it is the scientist 's duty to i n fo rm the public of the facts of his science. I t also represents a ma tu ra t i on of the incipient fo rm of social responsibili ty m a n y geneticists had mani fes ted before World W a r I. Before the war, geneticists were interested in eugenics as a type of biological sociology; in advocat ing eugenic pro- g rams they were us ing genetic theory to establish ends of social behavior. After the war, however, geneticists a t tempted to construct means , not ends, for social behavior. In the post-war years they evidently felt it behooved them only to provide the public with the facts of heredi ty and not to use those facts to construct such schemes. Social responsibili ty in modern fo rm apparent ly means analysis, not prescription.

I t is also clear f rom the above example that geneticists ' sense of social responsibili ty in modern fo rm developed as a response to the misuse of genetics in America and Germany. This fact suggests a general explanat ion for unders tand ing why cer tain groups of scientists have developed social responsibility. I t suggests tha t social responsibil i ty in m ode rn fo rm results f rom a crisis in the social uses of science. In the case of geneticists, this crisis was the use of genetic theory to just ify immigra t ion restr ict ion in the United States and sterilization p rograms in Nazi Germany. This crisis wrought such tragic consequences tha t geneticists began to conceive it as their responsibi l i ty to guard against any fur ther perversions of their science.

I t appears to me tha t this model migh t have more general validity than for the case in which I was dealing here. To m y knowledge, every group of scientists which has developed a sense of social responsibil i ty has done so following a crisis in the social uses of their science. The example of physicists is obvious; the social impac t of the atomic bomb was so great tha t m a n y physicists have since conceived it as their duty to explain a tomic energy to interested congressmen and laymen. Biochemists and chemis ts concerned with the use of chemical

40. L. C. Dunn, "Natural Science and Democracy," radio address deliv- ered on Armistice Day, 1937, LCD.

359


weapons also developed their concern af ter a crisis, the use of chemical weapons by the United States government on civilian populations. On the other hand, to m y knowledge there is no group of scientists possessing social responsibili ty in a field which has not undergone a m a j o r "crisis." Medical re- searchers, for example , have tradit ionally been devoid of any sense of social responsibility. Since 1966 there have been signs of an emerging sense of social responsibili ty among these men , judging f rom their recent f lurry of articles on the ethics of medical research, but it is significant tha t their concern has followed a great public interest in the mora l and philosophical implicat ions of organ t ransplanta t ion, an issue which m a y later be considered medicine 's "crisis."

Thus, af ter World W a r I, geneticists ' disi l lusionment with the eugenics m o v e m e n t entered a second phase, a stage charac- terized by their public repudiat ion of the movement . Underly- ing their condemnat ion was their deep aversion to the movemen t ' s subjugat ion of genetic principles to just ify preconceived social and political ideologies. In the 1920's geneticists reacted against the movemen t ' s use of genetic theory to just i fy immigra t ion restr ict ion legislation; in the 1930's they feared the movemen t ' s connections and similarities with eugenics in Nazi Germany. Thus, the second stage of geneticists ' wi thdrawal f rom the m o v e m e n t was p rompted by factors external to the science of genetics. These factors were consequential enough to have created a crisis in the social use of genetics, a crisis which was resolved by the emergence of a sense of modern social responsibili ty among m a n y of them. Geneticists, who before the war had helped found the m o v e m e n t and had contr ibuted to its early populari ty, in the end helped destroy it.

CONCLUSION

I have a t tempted to show that be tween 1905 and 1935, both in ternal and external factors were impor tan t in producing and influencing geneticists ' at t i tudes toward the eugenics movement . In te rna l factors operated in several ways during this period. In the first decade of the century, discoveries within genetics supplied geneticists a mode of expression to evoke their already existing social concern by providing a new vocabulary with which to present eugenic proposals. In addition, because these findings were relatively easy to explain to the layman, it became an easy ma t t e r for geneticists to popularize eugenics. After 1915, by suggesting the complexi ty of inheri tance, other developments within genetics helped dim their initial enthusi-

360


asm for the movement . During this period, fac tors external to the science of genetics also were important . By producing a general interest in social affairs among m a n y geneticists, the intel lectual and social milieu of the late 1800's lay the foun- dations for their ear ly par t ic ipat ion in the eugenics movement . In the 1920's and 1930's the subjection of genetic theory to support preconceived social and political doctrines p rompted t hem to renounce the m o v e m e n t publicly.

While both in ternal and external factors operated on geneticists, the lesson of this s tudy is tha t external factors were more impor tan t in influencing their att i tudes toward the move- m e n t than in ternal factors. At the turn of the century, geneticists inheri ted f rom Social Darwin i sm a general interest in applying biological principles to the analysis of social problems; discoveries within genetics main ly provided a convenient and persuasive terminology with which to express their interest. Later, both in ternal and external factors caused their enthusi- a sm for the m o v e m e n t to wane, but their public renuncia t ion of it was caused pr imar i ly by external factors alone.

The impor tance of external factors is seen to be even greater by considering the model I suggested to explain the develop- m e n t of social responsibili ty in modern fo rm among scientists. According to this model , social responsibili ty results af ter a crisis in the social uses of a given s c i e n c e - - a s a response to external factors. This model appears to account satisfactorily for the emergence of geneticists ' sense of social responsibil i ty: a la rmed by eugenicists ' f requent endorsement of Nazi "eugenic" p rograms , m a n y geneticists c la imed it was their duty to explain the facts of their science to the public so tha t the lay- m a n could see for h imsel f the scientific errors of racism. Geneticists were now present ing the l a y m a n the facts, though not necessari ly interpret ing the facts for him. This same pat- t e r n - - t h e emergence of modern social responsibili ty af ter an external ly induced c r i s i s - - appea r s to be present in the other examples that I gave.

The ironies revealed by this s tudy are many . First, it is ironic tha t principles of genetics created feelings of both pess imism and opt imism among m a n y geneticists. Early developments in gene t ics - -Mende l ' s laws, the concept of uni t inheri tance, and We i smann ' s t h e o r y - - s u p p l e m e n t e d Social Darwin i sm in creat- ing an a tmosphere of pess imism among m a n y geneticists by posing the gr im assumpt ion that h u m a n defects are hereditar- ily de termined and incapable of medica l cure. In recognizing the impor tance of heredi ty in development , m a n y geneticists for a while were overly pessimist ic in their forecasts of the

361

K E N N E T H l~I. LUDIVIERER

evolut ionary fu ture of the h u m a n race. These same three genetic developments , however, by suggesting the feasibility of a eugenics p rogram, of controll ing reproduct ion to el iminate defective genes f rom the populat ion, provided a remedy to the "problem" they had helped create.

I t is also ironic tha t even though the classical eugenics m o v e m e n t has been discredited in America for over thir ty years, m a n y individuals today are speaking of cer tain "dangers" to society in te rms remarkab ly similar to those used by the classical eugenicists. The explosion of the atomic bomb created a sudden awareness among the public of the dangers of gene muta t ion f rom radia t ion and other sources. 41 Today, as topics such as the "genetic load" are increasingly discussed, m a n y individuals are experiencing a growing a l a rm over the fu ture genetic condition of the Amer ican people, a marked concern over the r ising genetic and financial costs to society of modern medicine for preserving "defectives" and allowing them to reproduce.

Although geneticists in the 1930's generally abandoned the ideal of using science to prescribe policy, to construct ends for social action, it was this ideal which initially a t t racted m a n y of them to the eugenics m o v e m e n t in the first place. In the early years of the century, geneticists viewed science in a new light: as a res t ra int upon conduct. Hitherto, science had been valued for its products, for re leasing m a n f rom old burdens, for supplying h im new opportunit ies to enjoy and to explore life. In support ing the eugenics movement , geneticists depar ted f rom this mode. They now appealed to science, not for a par- t icular product , but to de termine who should and who should not reproduce. They let science act as a constra int upon their actions; they let science tell them that individual desires are less impor tan t than the biological and mora l imperat ive of improving the h u m a n race. 42 Thus, it becomes unders tandable why m a n y geneticists for a t ime regarded eugenics as a religion, for they had permit ted biology to assume religion's tradit ional funct ion of defining permissible conduct. The his- tory of geneticists ' involvement with the eugenics movemen t reminds us that science can play m a n y roles and be put to m a n y purposes.

41. P ro fe s so r D o n a l d F l e m i n g , u n p u b l i s h e d l ec tu res on " T h e His to ry of Sc ience i n A m e r i c a , " H a r v a r d Un ive r s i t y .

42. Ibid.

362

American geneticists and the eugenics movement: 1905–1935 · American Geneticists and the...

Documents

Transcript of American geneticists and the eugenics movement: 1905–1935 · American Geneticists and the...