American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement:
1905-1935
K E N N E T H M. LUDMERER
Reed Hall, Johns Hopkins University
1620 McElderry Street, Baltimore, Maryland
INTRODUCTION
C o m p a r e d to science in previous centuries, one notable aspect
of twentieth-century science is a feeling of social responsibility
a m o n g m a n y investigators. Not only in the United States, b u t
across the world, scientists h a v e spoken out in groups and as
individuals to help guide a n d direct the social applications of
their discoveries. Since the 1930's, physicists h a v e expressed
concern over the possible misuse of atomic energy, a concern
w h i c h h a s led to the f o r m a t i o n of the Federation of A m e r i c a n
Scientists, the British Atomic Scientists' Association, and similar organizations in J a p a n , m a n y E u r o p e a n nations, and all
the C o m m u n i s t countries. 1 Chemists and biochemists for a
decade h a v e b e e n debating the m o r a l issues involved in the
use of chemical w e a p o n s a n d in spring 1967, led 5000 Americ a n scientists in petitioning President J o h n s o n to end the
production of these arms. I n publicizing the d r a m a t i c n e w
vision of m a n ' s future suggested by recent findings in genetics
and m o l e c u l a r biology, biologists, too, h a v e openly d e m a n d e d
t h a t scientific discoveries be properly applied. I n all these
cases a scientist's view of his social responsibility m i g h t be
stated as follows: "Since I realize t h a t m y science h a s a fundam e n t a l i m p o r t a n c e to certain social or legislative questions, I
conceive it as m y responsibility to i n f o r m the public of the
facts of m y science, or to support the efforts of others who do,
so t h a t in considering these issues the public m a y be properly
informed."
Of these e x a m p l e s of scientists interested in social applica1. T h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s are d i s c u s s e d i n E. H. S. Burhop, "Scientists a n d
Public Affairs," i n M. G o l d s m i t h a n d A. MacKay, ed., Society and Science
( N e w York: S i m o n a n d Schuster, 1964).
337
KENNETH
i~I. LUDI~IEI~ER
tions of their discipline, one of the m o s t p r o m i n e n t is the case
of A m e r i c a n geneticists between 1905 and 1935. During those
years m a n y geneticists were interested in the issue of w h e t h e r
genetic principles should f o r m the basis of social legislation,
and their interest in this issue led t h e m into a consideration
of the merits of the eugenics m o v e m e n t . F r o m 1905 to around
1915, m a n y geneticists joined the m o v e m e n t and avidly supported its two-part p r o g r a m of "negative eugenics," the prevention of reproduction of those regarded as "unfit," and "positive
eugenics," the e n c o u r a g e m e n t of reproduction of those considered to be "fit." Largely because geneticists backed the
m o v e m e n t at that time, it enjoyed extensive public popularity
and achieved n u m e r o u s legislative triumphs. After approxim a t e l y 1915, the m a j o r i t y of these s a m e geneticists b e c a m e
disenchanted with the m o v e m e n t and dropped out of it. Their
a b a n d o n m e n t c a m e in two stages: f r o m 1915 to late 1923 they
frequently criticized the m o v e m e n t , though usually not harshly;
during the next dozen years, they publicly repudiated it. In
r e n o u n c i n g the m o v e m e n t in the 1930's, as they did, they
helped doom it to extinction.
It is the purpose of this p a p e r to analyze in detail the views
of A m e r i c a n geneticists between 1905 and 1935 toward the
eugenics m o v e m e n t and, m o r e 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 e m p t to show t h a t their attitude toward eugenics
was influenced both by scientific developments internal to the
science of genetics and by social and political factors external
to the science. I n this analysis I shall employ a model which
I hope will be capable of answering the general question of
h o w scientists develop a sense of social responsibility.
The challenge of this p a p e r is not to "demonstrate" that both
internal and external factors molded geneticists' attitudes toward
the eugenics m o v e m e n t , which is a r a t h e r b l a n d statement, but to
delineate clearly the respective roles and relative i m p o r t a n c e of
these two types of factors. With this in view, I shall a t t e m p t to
prove the following m a j o r points:
First: t h a t both the intellectual legacy of Social D a r w i n i s m
and certain developments within the science of genetics helped
initiate geneticists' interest in eugenics at the t e r m of the century and that of these two types of causes, the external were
the general, the internal the particular.
Second: t h a t internal factors were primarily responsible for
initiating the first p h a s e of geneticists' withdrawal f r o m the
eugenics m o v e m e n t . To this end, I shall a t t e m p t to show t h a t
n e w findings of heredity d a m p e n e d the e n t h u s i a s m of m a n y
geneticists for the m o v e m e n t ; by d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t inheri-
338
A m e r i c a n Geneticists a n d the E u g e n i c s M o v e m e n t
t a n c e is a m u c h m o r e c o m p l e x process t h a n h a d p r e v i o u s l y
b e e n thought, these findings i n d i c a t e d to m a n y geneticists t h a t
the t a s k of c o n s t r u c t i n g s o u n d a n d v a l u a b l e e u g e n i c s c h e m e s
is n o t so simple.
T h i r d : t h a t e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s were p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
t r i g g e r i n g the second p h a s e of geneticists' w i t h d r a w a l . I shall
a t t e m p t to d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t m a n y geneticists, a l a r m e d by the
m o v e m e n t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the vitriolic d e b a t e s over i m m i g r a t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n a n d by its a p p a r e n t e n d o r s e m e n t of the r a c e
theories of N a z i G e r m a n y , r e a c t e d a g a i n s t the m o v e m e n t by
r e n u n c i a t i n g it.
Before a n a l y z i n g geneticists' a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d the e u g e n i c s
m o v e m e n t , it is e s s e n t i a l to realize t h a t a n y s t u d y of a t t i t u d e
f o r m a t i o n also involves a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p s y c h o l o g i c a l factors. Thus, u n d e r l y i n g this h i s t o r i c a l i n q u i r y is a p s y c h o l o g i c a l
a s s u m p t i o n as to h o w a m a n c a n a c q u i r e a sense of social
responsibility. I n this p a p e r I a m m a k i n g the a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
b o t h objective evidence a n d e m o t i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t s are imp o r t a n t in the f o r m a t i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e , a n d c h a n g e of attitudes.
It is this p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s s u m p t i o n w h i c h u n d e r l i e s m y historical choice to categorize f a c t o r s as b e i n g e i t h e r " i n t e r n a l "
or "external." It is n o t the p u r p o s e of this p a p e r to a t t e m p t
to provide a p s y c h o l o g i c a l a c c o u n t of w h y c e r t a i n m e n h a v e
p r e d i l e c t i o n s t o w a r d social questions, b u t to b e g i n w i t h m e n
w h o h a d a n d f r o m h e r e to p r o c e e d to describe the n o n p s y chological f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e d their views t o w a r d the eugenics m o v e m e n t . Such a study, however, is m e a n i n g f u l only
w i t h the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t at the finest level of a n a l y s i s psychological q u e s t i o n s also are r e l e v a n t .
E N T H U S I A S M F O R EUGENICS
F r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1905 to 1915, n u m e r o u s A m e r i c a n geneticists were k e e n l y i n t e r e s t e d in the e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t in
this country. The three b e s t - k n o w n l e a d e r s of the m o v e m e n t ,
C h a r l e s B. D a v e n p o r t , H a r r y H. L a u g h l i n , a n d P a u l Popenoe,
were all t r a i n e d geneticists. 2 Every m e m b e r of the first edi2. 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
elected
to the National Academy of Sciences in 1912. Laughlin, Superintendent 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
KENNETH M. LUDMEBER
torial board of Genetics ( 1 9 1 6 ) - - a group including such ren o w n e d geneticists as T. H. Morgan, William E. Castle, Edwin
G. Conklin, E d w a r d M. East, H e r b e r t S. Jennings, and Raym o n d P e a r l - - p a r t i c i p a t e d in or gave support to the eugenics
m o v e m e n t at some point during the m o v e m e n t ' s early years.
Geneticists' e n t h u s i a s m for the m o v e m e n t resulted both f r o m
external social a n d intellectual factors a n d f r o m factors internal
to their science.
Several aspects of the late nineteenth-century social and intellectual milieu helped establish the context for geneticists'
interest in the topic of eugenics. The m o s t i m p o r t a n t of these was
Social D a r w i n i s m ' s ideal of searching for biological solutions to
social problems. M a n y early geneticists, particularly the younger
m e n who were reared and educated as evolution was winning its
victory, openly endorsed this ideal. Underlying their early inv o l v e m e n t 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 t u r n of the century, m a n y geneticists expressed this
view. As the Nobel laureate H. J. Muller wrote, "I h a v e n e v e r b e e n
interested in genetics purely as a n abstraction, but always because
of its f u n d a m e n t a l relation to m a n - - h i s characteristics and
m e a n s of self-betterment, which constituted the p r i m a r y source
of m y interest." a
While their e n t h u s i a s m for a sort of "biological sociology"
was at the base of m a n y geneticists' early interest in the
eugenics m o v e m e n t , other p a r t s of the nineteenth-century legacy also helped produce their interest. A m o n g these was the
fear--quite common among nineteenth-century intellectuals-that the quality of A m e r i c a n stock was degenerating. Geneticists, like m a n y the century before, often felt t h a t the institutions of education, charity, and medicine, by enabling less "fit"
individuals to survive, were t h r e a t e n i n g the future prosperity
of the A m e r i c a n people. This f e a r was heightened by belief in
the so-called "differential birth rate," the theory t h a t the "'unfit"
procreated f a r m o r e rapidly t h a n 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.
P e r h a p s the m o s t outspoken was Davenport, a m a n resolute
3. H. $. M u l l e r to C. B. D a v e n p o r t , 26 A u g u s t 1918, C h a r l e s B. D a v e n p o r t P a p e r s , A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y . H e r e a f t e r CBD. For s i m i l a r
s t a t e m e n t s b y o t h e r n o t e d g e n e t i c i s t s , see E d w a r d M. E a s t , M a n k i n d at the
Crossroads ( N e w York: C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ' s , 1 9 2 4 ) , p. v; C h a 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 Holt, 1 9 1 1 ) , p.
iii; E. G. C o n l d i n , "'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 t h r o u g h
improvements in the germ plasm. As he r e m a r k e d to Charles
W. Eliot, then president of H a r v a r d University, "It is m y present opinion that advances in medical art, at least, are not
working toward the increase in the proportion of m e n reaching
a high level of intellectual or physical capacity. The preservation of 'culls' by m o d e r n medicine is possibly, if not probably,
pulling down the average faster t h a n the increase in eugenical
ideals, leading to an increased production of higher types, c a n
possibly upbuild it. ''4 During these years Davenport was not
alone a m o n g geneticists in voicing such fears. ~ Believing that
the hereditary quality of the American people was on the decline, they naturally b e g a n thinking about the possibility of
instigating eugenic reform.
Many geneticists were also influenced by the c o m m o n late
nineteenth-century view of evolution and eugenics as a secular
religion, a view w h i c h was popularized by Francis Galton and
Karl Pearson, the two leading advocates of eugenic p r o g r a m s
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
m o r a l obligation upon m a n : that of using his intelligence to guide
his future development. Conklin wrote, "The topic [of eugenics]
• . . is one in which the bearings of science u p o n religion are
most vital, namely, the origin and destiny of the h u m a n race." 7
Pearl said of eugenics: "Its ideals m u s 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 m o v e m e n t lay in the late nineteenth century.
F r o m Social Darwinism they inherited a n 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. I n
addition, geneticists were influenced by the pessimism Social
Darwinism h a d b r e d - - w h i l e America was ascending as a world
power, m a n y geneticists were concerned with w h a t they considered to be a decline in the quality of American stock. Fur4. 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 H u m a n Evolution (New York: Charles
Scribner's, 1921), p. viii; East, Mankind, p. vii.
6. Conklin, H u m a n 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 between 1905 and 1915 advocated the
s a m e 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 i n e t e e n t h century h a d done. Even
geneticists' attitude toward e u g e n i c s - - t h e i r viewing it as a secular r e l i g i o n - - w a s inherited f r o m the earlier views of Galton a n d
Pearson.
While the n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y legacy set the context for geneticists' early interest in eugenics, w h a t p e r m i t t e d expression
of their interest were developments internal to the science of
genetics. These developments excited geneticists, for t a k e n together they suggsted t h a t action should be u n d e r t a k e n on
certain social problems geneticists considered urgent. Geneticists were quick to acknowledge the debt that eugenic theory
owed to the science of genetics. As Pearl wrote, " W e m a y t h e n
say that the e x p e r i m e n t a l study of inheritance in plants and
a n i m a l s is one of the m a i n f o u n d a t i o n s u p o n 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 a m o n g m a n y geneticists t h a t if these findings could explain the problems, t h e n they m i g h t ultimately guide the social
a n d medical r e f o r m s necessary to correct them.
The first of these crucial findings was the rediscovery of
Mendel's laws in 1900. By providing a long-sought explanation
for the t r a n s m i s s i o n and distribution of traits determined by
single genes f r o m one generation to the next, Mendel's laws
permitted geneticists to m a k e predictions about the n u m b e r
a n d types of offspring to be expected f r o m different types of
matings. The laws soon m a d e their i m p a c t u p o n breeding; the
imprecise rule that "like produces like" was abandoned, and
breeders b e g a n basing their m e t h o d s u p o n quantifiable biological theory. Pleased with results f r o m breeding, m a n y geneticists
quickly b e c a m e enthusiastic about the possibility of extending
Mendel's laws f r o m the breeding of plants a n d a n i m a l s to that
of better h u m a n beings.
A second i m p o r t a n t development was the e m e r g e n c e of a
belief in the generality of single gene (or "unit") inheritance,
a belief which was c o m m o n a m o n g geneticists during the first
ten years of the century. Acceptance of the generality of this
principle was i m p o r t a n t to those geneticists interested in eugenics, for it i m b u e d t h e m with confidence in their ability to
breed better m e n . Believing that m o s t traits are determined by
unit genes, they felt certain t h a t Mendel's laws explained the
t r a n s m i s s i o n of almost all characteristics and h e n c e that gen9. 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 after 1915, w h e n most geneticists had abandoned
their belief in the generality of unit inheritance because of
its inconsistency with breeding data, that their enthusiasm
for eugenics began to wane.
The third i m p o r t a n t development was the theory of the f a m e d
G e r m a n embryologist and geneticist, August Weismann. In the
late 1880's W e i s m a n n postulated that the material of the genes
is immutable, i m m u n e to change f r o m environmental influences,
thereby helping to m a k e untenable the prevailing belief among
biologists in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This
theory eventually had a profound effect upon the social views
of geneticists: in acknowledging environmental influences to
have a negligible effect upon the germ plasm, they b e c a m e
for a time pessimistic about the possibility of improving defective individuals through environmental agencies, a pessimism
which heightened their interest in eugenics as a m e t h o d to
improve the race. It was only after 1915, while they were renouncing unit inheritance, that most geneticists also began
recognizing the full importance of e n v i r o n m e n t in development
- - a n o t h e r reason why their infatuation with eugenics began
to evaporate at that particular 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 w h e n intellectual classes
were breaking away f r o m rooted traditions, w h e n established
faiths were being critically examined, w h e n religious authority
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 important figure in the confirmation 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 responsibilities which the new facts thrust upon us." 10 Similar statements are f o u n d 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.: BobbsMerrill, 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 i n the same way. As
343
KENNETH
M. LUDMERER
The role played by genetic findings in producing geneticists'
interest in the eugenics m o v e m e n t c a n be illustrated by examining the nontechnical writings of these men. For example, of
the fifteen geneticists of the period who belonged to the National Academy, two limited their nontechnical writings exclusively 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 s u e s - - a fact w h i c h suggests that their interest in eugenics
stemmed not just f r o m a general interest in science's relation
to society but f r o m elements within genetics itself. Each of
these nine h a d published papers prior to 1900, but they b e g a n
writing on social topics of any sort only after that d a t e - - o n l y
after m o d e r n genetics h a d been born.
At this time, significantly, there seem to have been no additional 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 r o m the Atlantic seaboard and Great Lakes
states, were by 1920 f o u n d in every other section of the country
- - a distribution which parallels that of American geneticists
in general at this time. I n addition, there was no conceptual
category of genetics any more effective t h a n others in producing this interest. A m o n g the p r o m i n e n t eugenicists, for exampie, Charles B. Davenport was a Mendelian, R a y m o n d Pearl
a biometrician, William E. Castle an animal geneticist, Edward M. East a plant geneticist, and H. J. Webber an experim e n t a l breeder. Furthermore, interest in eugenics apparently
did not stem f r o m 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. Similarly, of Morgan's best-known students at C o l u m b i a - - 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
A m e r i c a n Geneticists and the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
Sturtevant b e c a m e interested in h u m a n applications of genetics,
while Bridges r e m a i n e d unconcerned. No particular religious
or f a m i l y influence seems to h a v e b e e n operating either; geneticists of this period, almost all of w h o m were Protestant and
descended f r o m early A m e r i c a n ancestors, were recipients of
a similar social and religious heritage.
Thus, d e v e l o p m e n t s within genetics provided the i m m e d i a t e
i m p e t u s to m a n y geneticists' interest in the eugenics movem e n t . The p e r c e n t a g e of geneticists who b e c a m e 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
h a v e mentioned, nine of the fifteen geneticists of the period
who belonged to the N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y were sufticienfly interested in the issue of eugenics to publish articles on the subject.
Forty-two of the one h u n d r e d A m e r i c a n geneticists who served
in 1928 on the General C o m m i t t e e of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress of Genetics h a d at some time b e e n active in the movement. Significantly, not only widely k n o w n geneticists were
involved with the m o v e m e n t , but lesser k n o w n m e n as well,
m e n of the type who received u n s t a r r e d listings in Cattell's
A m e r i c a n M e n of Science. 12 This c a n best be seen by e x a m i n ing d a t a for the period after 1915. On the 1929 Advisory Council of the A m e r i c a n Eugenics Society, in addition to nine
starred geneticists, there were ten non-starred students of
heredity. A group of geneticists who wrote s t a t e m e n t s for a
small circular entitled " W h a t I T h i n k about Eugenics," published
by the A m e r i c a n Eugenics Society in 1925, consisted almost
evenly of non-starred a n d starred scientists. Between 1914 a n d
1930, articles a p p e a r i n g in the Journal of Heredity on the subjects of i m m i g r a t i o n , birth control, and eugenics were written
m o r e frequently by non-starred geneticists t h a n by starred ones.
W h a t is particularly striking at this time is the e n t h u s i a s m
geneticists displayed toward the eugenics m o v e m e n t . As Pearl
r e m a r k e d in 1913: "I doubt ff there is a n y other line of thought
or e n d e a v o r on which c o m m o n international discussion and
action c a n be so well a n d so profitably b r o u g h t about as with
eugenics. "18 Geneticists" e n t h u s i a s m 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 scientific 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 h e p a r t i c u l a r field) w e r e d e c l a r e d b y Cattell to be " s t a r r e d "
b y v i r t u e of a vote of t h e s c i e n t i s t s t h e m s e l v e s .
13. R a y m o n d P e a r l to C h a 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.
F o r o t h e r e x a m p l e s , see E d w i n G. C o n k l i n , Heredity and Environment in t h e
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 P r e s s ,
1 9 1 5 ) , p. vi; G u y e r , Being Well-Born, p. vii; C h a r l e s B. D a v e n p o r t t o
D a v i d Star~ J o r d a n , 24 M a y 1910, CBD.
345
KENNETH
M. LUDlVIERER
c o n t a g i o u s a n d p r o b a b l y c o n t r i b u t e d g r e a t l y to the r a p i d rise
in p o p u l a r i t y the m o v e m e n t e n j o y e d d u r i n g its first years. 14
Thus, in the p e r i o d b e t w e e n 1900 a n d 1915, a h i g h p e r c e n t
of A m e r i c a n geneticists b e c a m e i n t e r e s t e d in the eugenics
m o v e m e n t . A l a r m e d by w h a t they c o n s i d e r e d to be a decline
in the h e r e d i t a r y q u a l i t y of the A m e r i c a n people, they j o i n e d
the m o v e m e n t a n d s u p p o r t e d its p r o g r a m of "positive" a n d
"negative" eugenics in the hope they could help reverse this
trend. As a r d e n t e n t h u s i a s t s of the m o v e m e n t , geneticists cont r i b u t e d to its surge in p o p u l a r i t y a n d to its i n i t i a l legislative
successes.
The roots of geneticists' i n t e r e s t in the m o v e m e n t l a y deep
in the n i n e t e e n t h century. By i m b u i n g t h e m with an i n t e r e s t in
a p p l y i n g scientific tools to p r o b l e m s of m a n , Social D a r w i n i s m
h e l p e d initiate a sense of social r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a m o n g them. In
addition, their c o n s e r v a t i v e social a s s u m p t i o n t h a t e c o n o m i c
a n d social s t a t u s i n d i c a t e s genetic fitness, their p e s s i m i s t i c
view t h a t the A m e r i c a n people were h e r e d i t a r i l y d e g e n e r a t i n g ,
their p r o g r a m of positive a n d n e g a t i v e eugenics, a n d their view
of e u g e n i c s as a "secular r e l i g i o n " - - a l l were i n h e r i t e d f r o m
n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y biologists a n d intellectuals.
W h i l e this i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d social m i l i e u c o n s t i t u t e d the general cause of t h e i r i n t e r e s t in the eugenics m o v e m e n t , discoveries w i t h i n genetics acted as the i m m e d i a t e cause. Genetic
findings served as a n o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e w h i c h allowed previous s p e c u l a t i o n on e u g e n i c s to be r e c o u c h e d in quantifiable
terminology. I m p l i c i t in these discoveries, also, w a s the suggestion t h a t a n a t i o n a l eugenics p r o g r a m w a s both feasible a n d
desirable. I n a c t i n g u p o n the i m p l i c a t i o n s of these findings,
geneticists were m o t i v a t e d by their a f o r e m e n t i o n e d social comm i t m e n t s . This is n o t to say t h a t geneticists allowed their social
c o m m i t m e n t s to color their scientific i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the discoveries, w h i c h they g e n e r a l l y did not, b u t to suggest t h a t w i t h
a different set of social c o m m i t m e n t s they m i g h t h a v e d r a w n
f r o m the discoveries a different set of social conclusions f r o m
those they in f a c 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 Problems," 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
A m e r i c a n Geneticists and the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
D I S I L L U S I O N M E N T W I T H EUGENICS.
STAGE I.
Until a r o u n d 1915 geneticists' e n t h u s i a s m for the eugenics
m o v e m e n t often w e n t 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 u n e x p e c t e d light. T a k e n
as a whole, these developments showed that the genetic ass u m p t i o n s underlying the m o v e m e n t were invalid. By demonst-rating t h a t heredity w a s m o r e complex t h a n h a d previously
been thought, they also indicated t h a t the difficulties in applying genetic theories to m a n were correspondingly greater.
I n 1908 G. H. Hardy, a British m a t h e m a t i c i a n , and Wilhelm
Weinberg, a G e r m a n physician and part-time geneticist, indep e n d e n t l y derived w h a t is k n o w n today as the Hardy-Weinberg
Law, the f o u n d a t i o n of m o d e r n population genetics. This law
gives a m a t h e m a t i c a l t r e a t m e n t of gene frequencies in h u m a n
populations. It implies, a m o n g other things, t h a t eliminating a
trait f r o m a population is a n extraordinarily long and complex
process a n d thus belies eugenicists' claims t h a t breeding for
or against a p a r t i c u l a r trait is an easy task.
I n 1909 W. L. J o h a n n s e n , a Danish botanist and geneticist,
completed a series of e x p e r i m e n t s o n garden p e a s which effectively distinguished b e t w e e n inherited and noninherited variation. J o h a n n s e n isolated pure lines of garden p e a s (lines with
the s a m e genetic constitution) and tested t h e m for degrees of
similarity. A m o n g representatives f r o m different lines he discovered a great deal of variation. W h e n he tested individual
plants f r o m the s a m e lines he f o u n d no inherited variation but
did find m u c h fluctuation due to c h a n c e e n v i r o n m e n t a l influences. These results clearly d e m o n s t r a t e d the sensitivity of
genes to e n v i r o n m e n t a l influences, thereby suggesting t h a t dev e l o p m e n t is d e t e r m i n e d not by heredity alone, but by the
interaction of heredity a n d e n v i r o n m e n t .
Four years later, in 1913, the A m e r i c a n geneticists E d w a r d
M. E a s t and Rollins A. E m e r s o n b r o u g h t together in a classic
p a p e r on m a i z e crucial evidence disproving the generality of
unit inheritance. I n this paper, East and E m e r s o n developed
the "multiple gene" theory, a theory which explains the genetic
basis of the so-called "quantitative," or "metrical," characters
( c h a r a c t e r s , such as height and intelligence in m a n , which are
differences along continuous scales of m e a s u r e m e n t ) . According to this theory, the d e v e l o p m e n t of "quantitative" traits is
d e t e r m i n e d by the interaction of m a n y g e n e s - - w i t h each other
a n d with the e n v i r o n m e n t . As geneticists b e g a n to accept this
theory, they c a m e to realize t h a t Mendel's laws describe the
347
KENNETH M. LUDMEBER
p a t t e r n of i n h e r i t a n c e of r e l a t i v e l y f e w t r a i t s - - a r e a l i z a t i o n
w h i c h s h o w e d o n e of t h e m a j o r g e n e t i c a s s u m p t i o n s u n d e r l y Lug n e a r l y all e u g e n i c p r o p o s a l s of the p e r i o d to be i n v a l i d .
T h e s e g e n e t i c f i n d i n g s , t h e n , i n d i c a t e d t h a t e a r l i e r views of
i n h e r i t a n c e h a d b e e n oversimplified, a n d as a r e s u l t e u g e n i c
a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t h e r e d i t y were s e e n to be i n v a l i d . 1~ A r o u n d
the o u t b r e a k of the F i r s t W o r l d W a r , geneticists, as t h e y c a m e
to a c c e p t these f i n d i n g s , b e g a n to d i s p l a y a n a l t e r e d a t t i t u d e
t o w a r d the e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t . A w a r e of the c o m p l e x i t y of
i n h e r i t a n c e , t h e y b e g a n to feel t h a t e u g e n i c p r o g r a m s were
s c i e n t i f i c a l l y u n f e a s i b l e , a n d t h e i r e n t h u s i a s m for the movem e n t b e g a n to dull. I n 1913, for e x a m p l e , A. F. Blakeslee,
w h o s e r e s e a r c h e s o n the p l a n t D a t u r a p r o v i d e d i n s i g h t i n t o
s e v e r a l f u n d a m e n t a l g e n e t i c m e c h a n i s m s , d i s c u s s e d h o w the
n e w g e n e t i c f i n d i n g s affected h i s v i e w of the m o v e m e n t . Realizi n g t h a t e n v i r o n m e n t as well as h e r e d i t y is i m p o r t a n t i n dev e l o p m e n t , the e u g e n i c goal b e g a n to s e e m to h i m a d i s t a n t
ideal. He w a r n e d t h a t "in t h e g a r d e n of h u m a n life as i n the
g a r d e n of c o r n , s u c c e s s is t h e r e s u l t a n t c o m p l e x of the two
f a c t o r s , e n v i r o n m e n t a n d h e r e d i t y . " As a r e s u l t , h e felt t h a t
society c o u l d be i m p r o v e d b y n o n e u g e n i c m e a n s a n d w a r n e d
a g a i n s 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 l e g i s l a t i o n . He w r o t e :
"The e n t h u s i a s m , h o w e v e r , w i t h w h i c h some w o u l d t h o u g h t lessly r u s h i n t o e u g e n i c s a n d e u g e n i c l e g i s l a t i o n s h o w s t h a t
t h e y 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 i g h t [discovery of
t h e i m p o r t a n c e of h e r e d i t y i n d e v e l o p m e n t ] b l i n d t h e i r eyes to
t h e i n f l u e n c e of e n v i r o n m e n t as a f a c t o r to be c o n s i d e r e d . " 16
S u c h e x a m p l e s 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 aforementioned 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
A m e r i c a n Geneticists a n d the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
Thus, p r o m p t e d by c e r t a i n discoveries w i t h i n genetics, m a n y
geneticists b e g a n to voice their d i s e n c h a n t m e n t w i t h the eugenics m o v e m e n t . It is i m p o r t a n t to realize, however, t h a t
t h r o u g h o u t W o r l d W a r I a n d for a t i m e after, geneticists r a r e l y
criticized the m o v e m e n t h a r s h l y . I n the e a r l y 1920's, for e x a m ple, E a s t - - w h i l e s h a r p l y criticizing c e r t a i n eugenic p r o p o s a l s
- - s t i l l d e c l a r e d the m o v e m e n t to r e p r e s e n t "a c a u s e f u n d a m e n t a l l y good," 18 a n d s u c h n o t e d geneticists as T. H. M o r g a n ,
W. E. Castle, E. M. East, H. S. J e n n i n g s , a n d R a y m o n d P e a r l
c o n t i n u e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in v a r i o u s e u g e n i c congresses a n d
m e e t i n g s . ~9
It is also i m p o r t a n t to realize t h a t a f t e r the w a r the r a n k s of
the geneticists b e c a m e divided on the s u b j e c t of the e u g e n i c s
m o v e m e n t . Despite m o s t geneticists' growing d i s i l l u s i o n m e n t
with the m o v e m e n t , a s m a l l n u m b e r , the m o s t noted of w h o m
w a s D a v e n p o r t , even in the 1920's, m a i n t a i n e d a n u n d i m i n ished e n t h u s i a s m for eugenics. U n d a u n t e d by the i m p l i c a t i o n s
of the w o r k of J o h a n n s e n a n d of E a s t a n d E m e r s o n , these
m e n would n o t be s h a k e n f r o m their o r i g i n a l conviction t h a t
l o n g - r u n i m p r o v e m e n t s in society could r e s u l t only f r o m imp r o v e m e n t s in its g e r m p l a s m - - t h a t '¢heredity," as D a v e n p o r t
p u t it, " s t a n d s as the one g r e a t hope of the h u m a n race; its
savior f r o m imbecility, poverty, disease, i m m o r a l i t y . "2o E v e n
t h o u g h m o s t geneticists who h a d p r e v i o u s l y b a c k e d the movem e n t were l o s i n g e n t h u s i a s m for it, these m e n c o n t i n u e d their
efforts to p o p u l a r i z e it. A f t e r W o r l d W a r I, w h e n i m m i g r a tion to the U n i t e d States w a s b e g i n n i n g to soar, these s a m e
m e n took c o n s e r v a t i v e positions on questions of r a c e a n d immigration.
W h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s these two groups of geneticists is t h a t
those who u n r e s e r v e d l y c o n t i n u e d to e n d o r s e 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, M a n k i n d , 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
KENNETH
M. LUDMERER
movement never fully accepted the multiple gene theory or the
importance of environment in development, nor to my knowle 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
At the root of their disregard for these later findings within
genetics were both scientific and non-scientific factors. The
example of Popenoe, whose writings demonstrate greater devot i o n t o 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 t o s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h , 22
suggests that some geneticists were motivated
to disregard
these theories of heredity by social prejudices and that such
men used the eugenics movement as a scientific guise for their
racial, class, or religious bias. The example of Davenport, who
considered the theories to be scientifically unproved and whose
writings generally lacked the hostility toward minorities exp 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
were not always critical in making scientific judgments.
21. Davenport, for example, despite his close contact w i t h m a n y of those
doing research i n quantitative inheritance, r e m a i n e d steadfast i n his view
t h a t "most characteristics are, or m a y be resolved into, elementary units."
U n t i l his death i n 1944, h e was assigning u n i t gene d e t e r m i n a n t s to such
varied a n d complex traits as stature, t e m p e r a m e n t , intelligence, a n d
m e n t a l illness. Similarly, Popenoe was resolute i n his belief t h a t a n
individual's i m p o r t a n t characteristics, physical and m e n t a l , are determ i n e d by heredity r a t h e r t h a n by e n v i r o n m e n t a l forces. "'We are f a r f r o m
denying t h a t n u t u r e h a s a n influence on nature," h e wrote i n 1915, "but we
believe t h a t the influence of nurture, the environment, is only a fifth or
p e r h a p s a t e n t h t h a t of n a t u r e - - h e r e d i t y . " (Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook, 1906, p. 94; "Nature or N u t u r e ? " 1. Heredity, 6:227,
1915). W i t h respect to such factors as location t r a i n i n g a n d family
background, this minority group of geneticists is indistinguishable from
the group w h i c h was growing u n h a p p y w i t h the movement. Davenport, for
example, of early A m e r i c a n Protestant ancestry, h a d been a student of the
same teacher, E. L. Mark, at the same university, Harvard, as h a d J e n n i n g s
a n d Castle.
22. In his best-known work, Applied Eugenics, Popenoe openly preached
racist views. W i t h little evidence, he expressed his view i n this book t h a t
"not only is the Negro different from the white, but h e is i n the large
eugenically inferior to the white." Again, "The ability of a colored m a n is
proportionate to the a m o u n t of white blood h e has.'" He added, "The color
line therefore exists only as the result of race experience. This fact alone is
sufficient to suggest t h a t one should not dismiss it lightly as the outgrowth
of bigotry. Is it not perhaps a social adaptation with survival value?" ( P a u l
Popenoe a n d Roswell H. Johnson, Applied Eugenics. [New York: Macmillan, 1926], pp. 285, 188,280. )
23. Davenport's objections to the theories were at least partially entangled w i t h his m i s t a k e n skepticism toward the chromosome theory of
heredity, w h i c h even i n 1921 he felt "will require a good deal of work yet
before it c a n be adopted generally." As a sincere (if at times u n c r i t i c a l )
investigator, his statements o n eugenics were usually m a r k e d w i t h caution
a n d tolerance. He continually uttered w a r n i n g s to those less cautious
eugenicists zealously c a m p a i g n i n g for legislation to first accumulate evidence a n d only t h e n to attempt to pass legislation. It is significant t h a t h e
was greatly a l a r m e d at the racist a n d propagandist elements w h i c h i n the
350
A m e r i c a n Geneticists and the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
D u r i n g W o r l d W a r I t h e split b e t w e e n t h e l a r g e r b o d y o f
geneticists, who were losing enthusiasm for eugenics, and the
less c a u t i o u s e u g e n i c i s t s w a s n o t y e t c o m p l e t e . M a n y r e s p e c t e d
g e n e t i c i s t s h a d n o t y e t w h o l l y a c c e p t e d t h e n e w f i n d i n g s. G u y e r ,
f o r e x a m p l e , i n 1916 still f e l t t h a t h e r e d i t y w a s five to t e n
times 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 doubted that the
m u l t i p l e g e n e t h e o r y w a s s i g n i f i c a n t . 24 I n a d d i t i o n , t h e problems of the war were i m m e d i a t e and pressing; issues of eugenic
s i g n i f i c a n c e t e m p o r a r i l y lost t h e i r i m p o r t a n c e to m a n y g e n e t i cists. By t h e e n d o f t h e w a r , h o w e v e r , t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l split
b e t w e e n t h e b o d y o f g e n e t i c i s t s a n d m o s t e u g e n i c i s t s h a d become complete. The role 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 r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d , as h a d t h e m u l t i p l e g e n e t h e o r y a n d
t h e 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 gene t i c i s t s a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e s e t h e o r i e s , m o s t e u g e n i c i s t s did not.
Geneticists' interest in the study of h u m a n genetics had not
jel l ed . T h e b e s t m i n d s w o r k i n g i n g e n e t i c s w e r e l a r g e l y i n t e r ested in the general p h e n o m e n a of inheritance, not in their
e x p r e s s i o n i n specific species. G e n e t i c i s t s s t u d i e d m a i n l y l o w e r
organisms; the research strategy they felt provided them the best
p o s s i b l e e x p e r i m e n t a l r e s u l t s , z~ It w a s s i g n i f i c a n t w h e n J e n n i n g s ,
o f f e r e d t h e p r e s i d e n c y o f t h e A m e r i c a n E u g e n i c s S o c i e t y i n 1926,
d e c l i n e d so t h a t h e c o u l d d e v o t e h is t i m e to l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h . ~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 C B D ) .
24. Guyer, B e i n g W e l l - B o r n , 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.
S o t . , 109:216, 1965; and Laurence H. Snyder, "Old and New Pathways in
Human Genetics," in L. C. Dunn (ed.), G e n e t i c s in t h e 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 experimenter." 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
KENNETH M. LUDMERER
Thus, during the war years the majority of American geneticists b e g a n to lose e n t h u s i a s m for the eugenics movement, a
p h e n o m e n o n which was prompted by their realization that current genetic knowledge promised no quick hereditary improvem e n t of the h u m a n race. This represented the first of two
stages in their complete withdrawal from the eugenics movement. Despite their criticism of its scientific inadequacies,
most geneticists r e m a i n e d m e m b e r s of the m o v e m e n t and did
not publicly c o n d e m n it; a few, such as Davenport and Popenoe, even m a i n t a i n e d their original enthusiasm. However, the
stage was n o w 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 W a r I h a d ended, several factors contributed
to a heightened concern with racial questions a m o n g m a n y
Americans. Immigration, which h a d virtually ceased during
the war, b e g a n to rise as shipping once again became available
to transport civilians. Many Americans who, during the war,
h a d only abstract notions of i m m i g r a n t s now f o u n d themselves
encountering them in everyday life. I n the post-war mood of
isolation there was a general distrust and fear of anything foreign. A c c o m p a n y i n g this isolationist fervor of the 1920's was
a strong u n d e r c u r r e n t of anti-Semitic feeling which singled out
the Jew for scorn from other new i m m i g r a n t groups. A wave
of post-war labor riots, in which immigrants played a significant
role, intensified the racial unrest of m a n y Americans. The
Laughlin Report in 1922, 27 which concluded that "the recent
i m m i g r a n t s as a whole present a higher percentage of inborn
socially inadequate qualities t h a n do the older stocks," gave an
unofficial government sanction to this view. I m m i g r a n t s and
colored races h a d performed relatively poorly on the first Stanford-Binet intelligence test in 1916, a fact racists promptly
seized as "proof" of the inherently weak m e n t a l capacities of
these groups. Anthropology at this time was providing little
evidence to counter racist p r o p a g a n d a ; anthropologists h a d not
yet reached a consensus as to w h a t constitutes a racial trait,
and they h a d not yet b e g u n to appreciate the relevance of gencampaign 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. Hereafter 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
American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement
e t i c f i n d i n g s f o r t h e i r o w n work. 2s I n t h i s s o c i a l c o n t e x t , t h e
eugenics movement underwent a dramatic two-part change in
tone, a transition w h i c h p r o m p t e d a second and more intense
p h a s e o f g e n e t i c i s t s ' w i t h d r a w a l f r o m it.
As t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l split b e t w e e n g e n e t i c i s t s a n d e u g e n i c i s t s
w a s c o m p l e t e d , t h e e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t to a m u c h g r e a t e r deg r e e t h a n b e f o r e c a m e to be l e d b y m e n m a k i n g r a s h a n d
p r e t e n t i o u s c l a i m s a b o u t t h e p o w e r of h e r e d i t y . T h e v i e w s o m e
o f t h e s e m e n h e l d o f i n h e r i t a n c e w a s a s t o n i s h i n g i n its n a i v e t 6 .
T o q u o t e o n e of t h e m o v e m e n t ' s n e w " p r o p h e t s , " W. E. D.
Stokes, a w e l l - k n o w n h o r s e b r e e d e r a n d e u g e n i c i s t : " T h e r e is
n o t r o u b l e to b r e e d a n y k i n d o f m e n y o u like, 4 f e e t m e n or
7 f e e t m e n - - o r , f o r i n s t a n c e , all to w e i g h 60 or 4 0 0 p o u n d s ,
j u s t as w e b r e e d h o r s e s . "29 S u c h c l a i m s w e r e b a s e d u p o n
e u g e n i c i s t s ' na~'ve a n d u n c r i t i c a l v i e w o f t h e p h e n o m e n o n of
i n h e r i t a n c e : t h e y p l a c e d f a r too m u c h c o n f i d e n c e i n t h e influe n c e o f t h e g e n e s , a n d t h e y w e r e o v e r e a g e r to find t h e 3 : 1
M e n d e l i a n r a t i o i n all t h e t r a i t s t h e y c o n s i d e r e d .
T h i s first t r a n s i t i o n i n t h e m o v e m e n t w a s a c c o m p a n i e d by
a s e c o n d - - i t s pervasion by racists eulogizing the eugenic merits
o f i m m i g r a t i o n r e s t r i c t i o n . A f t e r i m m i g r a t i o n to t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s b e g a n to s k y r o c k e t , r a c i s t s a n d r e s t r i c t i o n i s t s , a l a r m e d
by w h a t t h e y c o n s i d e r e d to be " i n f e r i o r " n e w c o m e r s , 30 t u r n e d
to t h e e u g e n i c s m o v e m e n t , w h e r e t h e y f o u n d a s c i e n t i f i c s a n c t u a r y to ai r t h e i r p r e j u d i c e s . 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 surprisingly entertained an extraordinarily high opinion of their own pedigrees. 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, VicePresident 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 aggressive plea for the maintenance of a Protestant and "Nordic" America ever
published.
353
KENNETH M. LUDMERER
I n the years following the war, the eugenics m o v e m e n t continued to acquire more and more of a racist guise. In the 1920's
this was seen most clearly in the m o v e m e n t ' s participation in
the controversy over immigration restriction. Believing that
recent waves of i m m i g r a n t s consisted primarily of people of
poor hereditary stock whose inferior blood threatened to swamp
the "native" Americans, eugenicists opposed immigration and
c a m p a i g n e d for its restriction. The a r g u m e n t s of eugenicists
swayed m a n y , a m o n g w h o m was Representative Albert Johnson of Washington, sponsor of the 1924 I m m i g r a t i o n Restriction
Act, a m a n k n o w n for his enthusiastic endorsement of eugenic
pleas for restricting immigration. 32
With the impending passage of the I m m i g r a t i o n Restriction
Act, geneticists' unhappiness with the eugenics m o v e m e n t 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 m o v e m e n t to pervert their science for the a d v a n c e m e n t of racist goals. Accordingly, they
began to repudiate eugenics. I n late 1923 and early 1924, m a n y
noted g e n e t i c i s t s - - a m o n g w h o m were H. S. Jermings, R. Pearl,
Vernon Kellogg, E. Carleton MacDowell, and Samuel J. Holmes
---began correspondence over the immigration issue, expressing their c o m m o n fear that restrictive legislation might pass.
They were not necessarily against the idea of restricting immigration, since they realized that this could be one m e a n s 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 accentuating racial enmities. 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 Madison 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 c a n 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 immigration 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 l o s e 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 C o n g r e s s , a n d also of Laughlin's report. In 1923, in
recognition of his m a n y "services" to t h e c a u s e of e u g e n i c s , h e w a s e l e c t e d
h o n o r a r y president of the Eugenics R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n .
33. Raymond Pearl to Herbert S. Jennings, 24 November 1923, HS].
354
American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement
As t h e m o v e m e n t ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h e 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 g e n e t i c i s t s b e g a n to c r i t i c i z e i t p u b l i c l y , exp o s i n g t h e f a l s e b i o l o g y a t its b a s e ; a n d a l m o s t all o f t h e s e
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 t h t h e m o v e m e n t to its
activities during the restriction debates. For example, Herbert
S. J e n n i n g s , a f i r s t - r a t e g e n e t i c i s t w h o a f t e r W o r l d W a r I
became one of America's foremost expositors of applying only
s o u n d b i o l o g y to h u m a n a f f a i r s , i n h i s w i d e - s e l l i n g P r o m e t h e u s
criticized eugenicists severely for spreading a doctrine based
upon outmoded principles of biology. He stated:
Knowledge has moved rapidly and has, indeed, changed
fundamentally within the last ten years, altering the picture
as to t h e r e l a t i o n s o f 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
g o t t e n i n t o 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 r e sented in the conventional biological gospels--has become
grotesquely inadequate and misleading.
H e p a r t i c u l a r l y b e m o a n e d t h e u s e of f a l s e b i o l o g y to j u s t i f y
racist propaganda in the debates over immigration:
T h e s a m e f a l l a c y [ t h a t w h a t e v e r is h e r e d i t a r y is f i x e d a n d
unchangeable] reappears in discussions of racial problems.
The recent immigrants into the United States show certain
proportions of defective and diseased persons; and we are
informed that "these deficiencies are unchangeable and that
h e r e d i t y w i l l p a s s t h e m o n to a f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n . " T h e r e is
no warrant in the science of genetics for such a statement;
under new conditions, they may not appear . . . We are
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 p e o p l e s n o w differing from ourselves on the basis of the resounding assertion
that biology informs us that the environment can bring out
n o t h i n g w h a t e v e r b u t t h e h e r e d i t a r y c h a r a c t e r s . S u c h a n ass e r t i o n is p e r f e c t l y e m p t y a n d idle. 34
T h u s , i n t h e 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 u g e n i c i s t s '
d i s t o r t i o n o f t h e i r s c i e n c e to j u s t i f y t h e I m m i g r a t i o n R e s t r i c 34. Herbert S. Jennings, Prometheus (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1925),
pp. 11, 65-66. Similar views were expressed by: H. S. Jennings, "'Undesirable Aliens," The Survey, 51:311, 1923; East, Mankind, Preface;
T. H. Morgan, Evolution and Genetics (Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University 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 boundless, 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 accumulated in the attic" (Pearl, American Mercury, p. 266).
355
K E N N E T H M. I, UDMERER
tion Act of 199.4, m a n y geneticists publicy began to c o n d e m n
the movement. At this point it is important to reflect on why
they became so embittered against it. Two factors stand out.
First, the racial hostility engendered by the m o v e m e n t r a n
counter to m a n y geneticists' strong feelings of compassion and
understanding for their fellow man. 3~ In addition, eugenicists'
uncritical interpretation of genetic findings was incompatible
with geneticists' view of the importance of critically and objectively 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 reaction against the m o v e m e n t can best be
understood in this light.
In the 1930's geneticists' reaction against the eugenics movem e n t reached its climax. In this decade their fears of racism
increased as they witnessed the Nazis espouse a creed of Aryan
purity and superiority and a morbid fascination 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 m o v e m e n t with suspicion,
since m a n y American eugenicists had been forthright in their
praise of G e r m a n "eugenic" measures. Paul Popenoe, for example, thought highly of the Nazi sterilization program; Lothrop
Stoddard, another p r o m i n e n t eugenicist, once described a G e r m a n
sterilization hearing and recorded his admiration for the Germ a n emphasis upon biological fitness. 86 Fearing another
Germany, m a n y geneticists in the mid-1930's completed their
renunciation of the eugenics movement. To underscore this important point, it is worth quoting L. C. Dunn, a Columbia
University geneticist, in detail:
With genetics [eugenics'] relations have always been close,
although there have been distinct signs of cleavage in recent
years, chiefly due to the feeling on the part of m a n y 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 e n n i n g s , p a r t i c u l a r l y , w a s k n o w n f o r h i s h u m a n i t a r i a n i s m . F o r a n
e x a m p l e of w h y h e w a s so regarded, see Independent W o m a n , to H e r b e r t
S. J e n n i n g s , 9 F e b r u a r y 1934, HSJ.
36. F o r a r e v e a l i n g letter o n P o p e n o e ' s e n d o r s e m e n t of N a z i e u g e n i c
s c h e m e s , see P a u l P o p e n o e to L. C. D u n n , 22 J a n u a r y 1934, Leslie C. D u r r a
P a p e r s , A m e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l Library. H e r e a f t e r cited as LCD. L o t h r o p
Stoddard, Into the Darkness: Nazi Germany Today ( N e w York: DueU,
Sloan, & Pearce, 1940), pp. 179 ft.
356
A m e r i c a n Geneticists and the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
too rapid application of incompletely proved theses . . .
I h a v e just observed in G e r m a n y some of the consequences
of reversing the order as between p r o g r a m and discovery.
The incomplete knowledge of today, m u c h of it based on a
theory of the state which h a s b e e n influenced by the racial,
class, a n d religious prejudices of the group in power, h a s
b e e n e m b a l m e d in law, and the avenues to i m p r o v e m e n t in
the techniques of i m p r o v i n g the population h a v e b e e n completely closed. Although some progress m a y be m a d e in reducing the proportion of those elements which are undesirable
to the regime, the cost a p p e a r s to be tremendous. The
genealogical record offices h a v e b e c o m e p o w e r f u l agencies
of the state, a n d medical j u d g m e n t s even w h e n possible,
a p p e a r to be subservient to political purposes. A p a r t f r o m
the injustices in individual cases, and the loss of personal
liberty, the solution of the whole eugenic p r o b l e m by fiat
eliminates a n y rational solution by free competition of ideas
a n d evidence. Scientific progress in general seems to h a v e a
very d a r k future. Altho m u c h of this is due to the dictatorship, it seems to illustrate the dangers which all p r o g r a m s
r u n which are not continually responsive to n e w knowledge,
and should certainly s t r e n g t h e n the resolve which we generally h a v e in the U.S. to keep all agencies which contribute
to such questions as free as possible f r o m c o m m i t m e n t to
fixed p r o g r a m s Y
The geneticists' repudiation 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 m o v e m e n t . I n 1933, geneticists' d i s m a y with the
G e r m a n situation helped instigate a shake-up in the editorial
policies of the Journal of Heredity, which until t h e n h a d been
publishing m a n y uncritical articles favorable toward eugenics.
T h r o u g h o u t the 1930's, n u m e r o u s g e n e t i c i s t s - - i n c l u d i n g Curt
Stern, A. F. Shull, A. F. Blakeslee, R. A. Emerson, C. H. Danforth, L. C. D u n n , L a u r e n c e H. Snyder, Sewall Wright, B a r b a r a
McClintock, R a y m o n d Pearl, and L. J. C o l e - - w e r e working for
the A m e r i c a n C o m m i t t e e for Displaced G e r m a n Scholars, a n
organization a t t e m p t i n g to relocate displaced G e r m a n acad e m i a n s in A m e r i c a n institutions, as I n 1939 the Seventh In37. L. C. D u n n to J o h n M e r r i a m , 3 J u l y 1935, LCD.
38. T h e D u n n P a p e r s provide a p o i g n a n t a c c o u n t of the h u m a n p r o b l e m s
i n v o l v e d i n the r e l o c a t i o n of displaced G e r m a n scholars. T h e C o m m i t t e e
w a s c o n f r o n t e d by a conflict b e t w e e n its h u m a n i t a r i a n goal of a i d i n g the
r e f u g e e s a n d the p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h o w n o t to stifle A m e r i c a n
s c h o l a r s h i p by offering p o s i t i o n s to G e r m a n s r a t h e r t h a n to y o u n g Americ a n s . T h e C o m m i t t e e ' s c o m p r o m i s e w a s u s u a l l y to try to find p o s i t i o n s
357
K E N N E T H M. L U D M E R E R
ternational Genetics Congress at Edinburgh m a d e a n official
c o n d e m n a t i o n of eugenics, racism, and N a z i doctrines. 39 N o t
surprisingly, geneticists' r e n u n c i a t i o n of the eugenics movem e n t at this time contributed to the m o v e m e n t ' s ultimate downfall.
Thus, in the 1930's, repelled by the Hitler regime, m a n y
geneticists completed their reconsideration of the eugenics movement. Alarmed by the w a y the Nazis p u t genetics to use in
G e r m a n y , they resolved to p r e v e n t a n y such tragedy in this
country. To geneticists, the A m e r i c a n m o v e m e n t , with leaders
such as Popenoe, Stoddard, and Grant, seemed to s m a c k too
m u c h of a Nazi b r a n d of racism. No longer tolerant of the movem e n t ' s inade~luacies, m a n y geneticists publicly repudiated eugenics.
Significantly, while they were r e n o u n c i n g the eugenics movem e n t in the 1930's, geneticists for the first time m a n i f e s t e d a
sense of social responsibility in its m o d e r n form. It is again worth
quoting D u n n in detail:
The effects of this knowledge [genetic science] upon society h a v e been quite different in different countries. The
d e m o n s t r a t i o n that certain differences between individuals
are influenced by heredity and hence by ancestry h a s led in
G e r m a n y to the p r o m u l g a t i o n and e n f o r c e m e n t of laws requiring the elimination of persons with certain characteristics
f r o m the breeding population. If you live in G e r m a n y you
c a n be haled before a court and sentenced to be sterilized
for a n y one of a n u m b e r of offenses c o m m i t t e d w h e n you
chose your a n c e s t o r s . . .
I n our o w n country the i m m i g r a t i o n quotas were set some
time ago after hearings at which alleged m e n t a l differences
between E u r o p e a n races, p r e s u m a b l y of a genetic and therefore p e r m a n e n t character, played a large p a r t in determining a policy which h a s guided our d e m o c r a c y for twenty
years.
W h a t c a n science do for d e m o c r a c y ? It c a n tell the people
the t r u t h 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 practice which resulted, but not enough people k n e w
t h e m well enough or lacked the courage to m a k e t h e m known.
f o r r e f u g e e s w h i c h A m e r i c a n s w o u l d n o t h a v e filled a n y w a y . T h i s comp r o m i s e w a s o f t e n e m o t i o n a l l y t r y i n g f o r the r e f u g e e s , h o w e v e r , since m a n y
m e n w h o h a d b e e n l e a d i n g s c h o l a r s i n G e r m a n y h a d to be c o n t e n t w i t h
o b s c u r e a n d u n i m p o r t a n t p o s i t i o n s i n America.
39. R u t h Benedict, Race: Science a n d Politics ( N e w York: Viking Press,
1943), pp. 264-266.
358
A m e r i c a n Geneticists a n d the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
Since the people h a v e come to accept p r o n o u n c e m e n t s
m a d e in the n a m e of science, chiefly I think because of the
prestige gained through m a t e r i a l and technological a d v a n c e s
m a d e possible t h r o u g h science, it behooves scientists to be
a w a r e of the responsibility which this trust and support implies. ~o
Referring b a c k to the discussion which b e g a n this paper,
D u n n ' s speech clearly represents an explicit s t a t e m e n t of social
responsibility in its m o d e r n f o r m , a s t a t e m e n t t h a t it is the
scientist's duty to i n f o r m the public of the facts of his science.
It also represents a m a t u r a t i o n of the incipient f o r m of social
responsibility m a n y geneticists h a d m a n i f e s t e d before World
W a r I. Before the war, geneticists were interested in eugenics
as a type of biological sociology; in advocating eugenic prog r a m s they were using genetic theory to establish ends of social
behavior. After the war, however, geneticists a t t e m p t e d to
construct m e a n s , not ends, for social behavior. I n the post-war
years they evidently felt it behooved t h e m only to provide the
public with the facts of heredity and not to use those facts to
construct such schemes. Social responsibility in m o d e r n f o r m
a p p a r e n t l y m e a n s analysis, not prescription.
It is also clear f r o m the above e x a m p l e that geneticists' sense
of social responsibility in m o d e r n f o r m developed as a response
to the misuse of genetics in America and Germany. This fact
suggests a general e x p l a n a t i o n for u n d e r s t a n d i n g w h y certain
groups of scientists h a v e developed social responsibility. It
suggests t h a t social responsibility in m o d e r n f o r m results f r o m
a crisis in t h e social uses of science. I n the case of geneticists,
this crisis was the use of genetic theory to justify i m m i g r a t i o n
restriction in the United States and sterilization p r o g r a m s in
Nazi G e r m a n y . This crisis wrought such tragic consequences
t h a t geneticists b e g a n to conceive it as their responsibility to
guard against a n y f u r t h e r perversions of their science.
It a p p e a r s to m e t h a t this m o d e l m i g h t have m o r e general
validity t h a n for the case in which I was dealing here. To m y
knowledge, every group of scientists which h a s developed a
sense of social responsibility h a s done so following a crisis in
the social uses of their science. The e x a m p l e of physicists is
obvious; the social i m p a c t of the atomic b o m b was so great
t h a t m a n y physicists h a v e since conceived it as their duty to
explain atomic energy to interested c o n g r e s s m e n and laymen.
Biochemists a n d chemists concerned with the use of chemical
40. L. C. Dunn, "Natural Science and Democracy," radio address delivered on Armistice Day, 1937, LCD.
359
KENNETH M. LUDMERER
w e a p o n s also developed their concern after a crisis, the use
of chemical w e a p o n s by the United States g o v e r n m e n t on
civilian populations. On the other h a n d , to m y knowledge there
is no group of scientists possessing social responsibility in a
field which h a s not undergone a m a j o r "crisis." Medical researchers, for example, h a v e traditionally b e e n devoid of a n y
sense of social responsibility. Since 1966 there h a v e been signs
of an e m e r g i n g sense of social responsibility a m o n g these m e n ,
judging f r o m their recent flurry of articles on the ethics of
medical research, but it is significant t h a t their concern h a s
followed a great public interest in the m o r a l and philosophical
implications of o r g a n transplantation, a n issue which m a y later
be considered medicine's "crisis."
Thus, after World W a r I, geneticists' disillusionment with
the eugenics m o v e m e n t entered a second phase, a stage characterized by their public repudiation of the m o v e m e n t . Underlying their c o n d e m n a t i o n w a s their deep aversion to the
m o v e m e n t ' s subjugation of genetic principles to justify preconceived social and political ideologies. I n the 1920's geneticists reacted against the m o v e m e n t ' s use of genetic theory to
justify i m m i g r a t i o n restriction legislation; in the 1930's they
feared the m o v e m e n t ' s connections and similarities with eugenics in N a z i G e r m a n y . Thus, the second stage of geneticists'
w i t h d r a w a l f r o m the m o v e m e n t was p r o m p t e d by factors external
to the science of genetics. These factors were consequential
enough to h a v e created a crisis in the social use of genetics, a
crisis which was resolved by the e m e r g e n c e of a sense of m o d e r n
social responsibility a m o n g m a n y of them. Geneticists, who before the w a r h a d helped f o u n d the m o v e m e n t and h a d contributed
to its early popularity, in the end helped destroy it.
CONCLUSION
I h a v e a t t e m p t e d to show that between 1905 and 1935, both
internal and external factors were i m p o r t a n t in producing and
influencing geneticists' attitudes toward the eugenics m o v e m e n t .
I n t e r n a l factors operated in several ways during this period.
I n the first decade of the century, discoveries within genetics
supplied geneticists a m o d e of expression to evoke their alr e a d y existing social concern by providing a n e w vocabulary
with which to p r e s e n t eugenic proposals. I n addition, because
these findings were relatively easy to explain to the l a y m a n , it
b e c a m e an easy m a t t e r for geneticists to popularize eugenics.
After 1915, by suggesting the complexity of inheritance, other
developments within genetics helped dim their initial enthusi-
360
A m e r i c a n Geneticists and the Eugenics M o v e m e n t
a s m for the m o v e m e n t . During this period, factors external to
the science of genetics also were important. By producing a
general interest in social affairs a m o n g m a n y geneticists, the
intellectual a n d social milieu of the late 1800's lay the foundations for their early participation in the eugenics m o v e m e n t .
I n the 1920's a n d 1930's the subjection of genetic theory to
support preconceived social a n d political doctrines p r o m p t e d
t h e m to r e n o u n c e the m o v e m e n t publicly.
While both internal a n d external factors operated on geneticists, the lesson of this study is t h a t external factors were
m o r e i m p o r t a n t in influencing their attitudes toward the movem e n t t h a n internal factors. At the t u r n of the century, geneticists inherited f r o m Social D a r w i n i s m a general interest in
applying biological principles to the analysis of social problems; discoveries within genetics m a i n l y provided a convenient
and persuasive terminology with which to express their interest.
Later, both internal a n d external factors caused their enthusia s m for the m o v e m e n t to wane, b u t their public r e n u n c i a t i o n
of it was caused p r i m a r i l y by external factors alone.
The i m p o r t a n c e of external factors is seen to be even greater
by considering the model I suggested to explain the developm e n t of social responsibility in m o d e r n f o r m a m o n g scientists.
According to this model, social responsibility results after 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 a p p e a r s to account satisfactorily
for the e m e r g e n c e of geneticists' sense of social responsibility:
a l a r m e d by eugenicists' f r e q u e n t e n d o r s e m e n t of Nazi "eugenic" p r o g r a m s , m a n y geneticists claimed it w a s their duty to
explain the facts of their science to the public so t h a t the laym a n could see for h i m s e l f the scientific errors of racism.
Geneticists were n o w presenting the l a y m a n the facts, though
not necessarily interpreting the facts for him. This s a m e patt e r n - - t h e e m e r g e n c e of m o d e r n social responsibility after an
externally induced c r i s i s - - a p p e a r s to be present in the other
e x a m p l e s that I gave.
The ironies revealed by this study are m a n y . First, it is ironic
t h a t principles of genetics created feelings of both p e s s i m i s m
and o p t i m i s m a m o n g m a n y geneticists. Early developments in
g e n e t i c s - - M e n d e l ' s laws, the concept of unit inheritance, and
W e i s m a n n ' s t h e o r y - - s u p p l e m e n t e d Social D a r w i n i s m in creating a n a t m o s p h e r e of p e s s i m i s m a m o n g m a n y geneticists by
posing the grim a s s u m p t i o n that h u m a n defects are hereditarily d e t e r m i n e d and incapable of m e d i c a l cure. I n recognizing
the i m p o r t a n c e of heredity in development, m a n y geneticists
for a while were overly pessimistic in their forecasts of the
361
K E N N E T H l~I. LUDIVIERER
evolutionary f u t u r e of the h u m a n race. These s a m e three genetic developments, however, by suggesting the feasibility of a
eugenics p r o g r a m , of controlling reproduction to eliminate
defective genes f r o m the population, provided a r e m e d y to
the "problem" they h a d helped create.
It is also ironic t h a t e v e n though the classical eugenics
m o v e m e n t h a s been discredited in America for over thirty years,
m a n y individuals today are speaking of certain "dangers" to
society in t e r m s r e m a r k a b l y similar to those used by the classical eugenicists. The explosion of the atomic b o m b created a
sudden awareness a m o n g the public of the dangers of gene
m u t a t i o n f r o m radiation 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 r m over the future
genetic condition of the A m e r i c a n people, a m a r k e d concern
over the rising genetic and financial costs to society of m o d e r n
medicine for preserving "defectives" a n d allowing t h e m to
reproduce.
Although geneticists in the 1930's generally a b a n d o n e d the
ideal of using science to prescribe policy, to construct ends for
social action, it was this ideal which initially attracted m a n y
of t h e m 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 n e w
light: as a restraint u p o n conduct. Hitherto, science h a d been
valued for its products, for releasing m a n f r o m old burdens,
for supplying h i m n e w opportunities to enjoy and to explore
life. In supporting the eugenics m o v e m e n t , geneticists departed
f r o m this mode. T h e y n o w appealed to science, not for a particular product, but to d e t e r m i n e who should and who should
not reproduce. T h e y let science act as a constraint upon their
actions; they let science tell t h e m that individual desires are
less i m p o r t a n t t h a n the biological and m o r a l imperative of
i m p r o v i n g the h u m a n race. 42 Thus, it becomes u n d e r s t a n d a b l e
w h y m a n y geneticists for a time regarded eugenics as a religion, for they h a d permitted biology to a s s u m e religion's
traditional function of defining permissible conduct. The history of geneticists' i n v o l v e m e n t with the eugenics m o v e m e n t
r e m i n d s us that science c a n play m a n y roles and be put to
m a n y purposes.
41. P r o f e s s o 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 e c t u r e s o n " T h e H i s t o r y of
Science in America," Harvard University.
42. Ibid.
362