http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/science/haunted-files-the-eugenics-record-office-recreates-a-dark-time-in-a-laboratorys-past.html?referrer=
Look around the site a bit and then connect to your upcoming reading (chapter?? 8??) which talks about eugenics. You'll know it when you read it. What is most surprising about the eugenics movement? What is most shocking or disheartening or shameful? Do you think science could go so wrong again? Why or why not?
After reading the chapter on eugenics I found myself surprised by the fact that it took World War II for the U.S. to see how wrong it is to selectively sterilize people. The end of the chapter says "most geneticists quietly climbed off the eugenics bandwagon, as well." My question is why ever were they on the bandwagon in the first place? Another surprising fact is that the idea of nurture was completely ignored. They opened the eugenics office even though they knew the environment that a child is raised in can have an impact on its development. It's hard to justify why this idea was put to use, but in the light of the time period with Social Darwinism in its prime I can see why it wasn't completely shut down. I hope that science won't go that wrong again, but who knows what new discoveries will be made or the answers to the ethical questions that they bring.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of why the program was continued even after they had knowledge of the affects on a child according to their environment is notable. If compared to our government today we know that a lot of outside factors take place in the decision making process and that the program may have been continued only for the benefit of the "superior" group.
DeleteI agree with you Nate on believing that the U.S. should have banned the idea of Eugenics well before it spread as much as it did. My interpretation of this ideal is basically an attempt to create a way to make a whole new generation of people the way that these people want them. It honestly sounds like the belief Hitler had in the time around World War II as Nate said. I find this sickening to know that somehow this was involved in science. This is completely wrong in the eyes of Nature and by the definition of natural evolution as well. Evolution is suppose to happen on its own without interference from man-made sterilizations or factors that could effect how the world changes. On the other hand, Nate to answer your question about why people joined the bandwagon is also ironically human nature. As people we tend to follow the new trend, at least when we see good support of the new idea. Eugenics came on the scene as new and interesting drawing plenty of heads in the science and natural world. It even got the attention of Darwin but he knew that this science as he said was "far ahead of its time". Some after Darwin neglected the beliefs still followed what Eugenics meant but most turned away.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFollowing Nate's question..you also have to think that these were the scientists of the time. Haven't we been taught to "trust scientists"? We are under the assumption that their data has been empirically supported, not based on bias or subjectivity.
DeleteIs insanity really something you can inherit or is the idea of Eugenics all based on a false accusation? I agree that insanity can be inherited because as a small child if you are around insane people or even one person everyday. That could potentially rub off on you making you the next victim in this terrible generation of people. It would be hard to stop such a inheritance because of the love for one another and the want to be around family. If your family is crazy yet that becomes normal to you soon you will be the one who is considered that way as well. I gained this question after looking at the article and peeking at the insanity chart they displayed that was found in the house.
ReplyDeleteAny endeavor to achieve "racial cleansing" via eugenics is unsound. As Micklos says, on a genetic level, "There is relatively little difference between any two human beings... we learn from modern genetics... that people are very much the same." Considering that is the current paradigm now, most faze at the fact at why one time eugenics was at its peak.
ReplyDeleteIn general, the human race tries to get rid of any flaws that are noticed. It tries to advance. And because of that, some dream about having a perfect human race. Nothing is desired that will impede the future or improvement of something. No one wants the human race to die out or lack improvement. Much research, effective sterilization, and the denial of entry of immigrants were all answers to help combat the supposed "issue." But, was it all moral and humane? I don't think so. Part of being human is being able to accept imperfection. Trying to avoid it is not human. What surprises me is how sometimes we go so far to achieve something that will never happen. For example, consider the Nazi movement and its view of a superior race. Certainly, what was done in World War II crossed many lines.
It is shocking that actual laws were set in place to support eugenics, and that many people were robbed of their sexual freedom and social respect. I believe that science could go very wrong again if we use science to exclude, degrade, and control huge amounts of people. The sad thing is that in situations like these, people play god on other people. But, sometimes being proactive won't do anything. Sometimes, we have to wait for things to happen before something ends. For example, eugenics was widely accepted until World War II, until the Nazis perverted the already-perverted views even more with their views on a superior race.
What is most surprising about this movement is that it wasn't fully driven from scientific evidence but rather that of opinions and bias'. This idea of eugenics came about because it coincided with the views of the upper class, that they were superior. Because the upper class held most of the power it was simple for them to force their policies upon the already suppressed lower class. It was shocking to see that even the government allowed such inequality and that there was not much resistance from the persecuted group. I do not believe that science could go this wrong again, especially under the aspects of race. We are too far advanced to make such decisions as that of sterilization off of ill proven evidence that has not been obtained scientifically.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori! I found it shocking how people in the upper class had their say in Eugenics. What evidence did they have? How did science allow these non-empirical views in? I thought science was always based on facts and data...not opinions? Such views are biased liked Tori said. I just don't understand how such falsehood was allowed in the US and into science. It highly concerns me, as I would hope nothing like that would ever happen again.
DeleteIn chapter 8, eugenics is supported through the belief that, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve from their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." p 195 Galton believes that it should be in our efforts to further the ends of evolution quicker and with less distress than if these events were left to happen on their own course. This seems contradicting, when the Holocaust seems to be more 'distressful' than natural events of evolution. The idea of eugenics may have initially been a way to become a more efficient society, but it resulted in many flaws and ethical questions.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find to be disheartening is the idea, “The Eugenics Record Office was built around very systematized ideas that still might be seen as legitimate today", which seems to mean the same mistakes may continue to happen in the future, if these ideas are as "legitimate" today. Science cannot be firmly based on bias or social prejudice, but empiricist data. Science must face the questions of ethics and the rights of humanity before further undergoing action.