Talk:Eugenics/Archive 2

Possible reworking

I'm considering redividing this page differently ...

I. History of Eugenics

• General stuff on it's perception, adoption by different countries, etc.

II. Theoretical basis of eugenics

• Basis in genetics (Mendel, statistics)
• Some ideas became outdated (mostly, that mixing of races was bad)
• Inheritance of intelligent (part of nature and nurture, need of a combination of genes)
• Current stuff

III. Application of eugenics

• Stuff on positive and negative eugenics
• "designer babies", advances in genetic technology

... These are partly notes for myself for when I have a bigger time-window for this ^-^ I prefer to have them here than on the piece of paper where I took notes from the library. I felt that this way would give a bit more structure to the article (especially on the emphasis that two concepts strongly associated with eugenism, namely racism and forced sterilization, have been abandonned (i.e., racism is no more scientifically respectable, and "modern" eugenic proposals do not rely on coercive sterilization).

Maybe liberal eugenics should be integrated, or at least made closer to this article ? Flammifer 15:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• That is fantasy. I spent several years working for a large reproductive health organisation, who operates in many developing countries. We were consistently accused of enforced sterilisation and I have evidence that it occured. We were funded by the Galton Institute - the UK Eugenics Society and had strong links to several key Eugenicists. It is dangerous and blinkered to assume that eugenics no longer considers enforced sterilisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.40.85 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for taking the time to think about this. However I don't think that your plan would work well in practice. Trying to document the various scientific claims or principles of eugenics is difficult since so little of it was rigorous. The field of eugenics, with the exception of a few theorists including proponents of "liberal eugenics", has essentially "shut down" and been replaced with genetics. Further, this article is the product of considerable research and editing by many contributors. Are there any improvements that we can make to it that wouldn't involve a complete re-write? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:40, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm personally more inclined to treating the structure of the article chronologically, as it currently attempts to do. Jumping around radically, taking things out of context, etc., confuses the picture greatly, I think, and also overly negates the way in which the historical precedents have affected modern considerations of these things. I am also very wary of people who want to lump in things like "designer babies" or even single-gene screening (i.e. Cyprus) so straightforwardly with "eugenics" -- it is almost always done either as a way of saying "this activity is bad" or "eugenics is really good and practiced." Most of the scientists actually involved in this work would never say that their work is eugenics, both for obvious political/historical reasons, but also because the goals are often considerably different than the eugenicists (they aren't usually trying to improve the human race as a whole -- it is usually formulated around an individual basis of reasoning than a collective one). To say "genetic engineering is eugenics" is very problematic, whether you mean it to be positive or negative, and most geneticists would not agree with the statement in either case.

My idea for how this article would improve from its present state is mostly a case of clarifying and expanding certain discussions while contracting others.

I would shunt off a lot of the 19th century eugenics specifics to the article on Galton himself, use that section to focus more on the goals of 19th century eugenicists, and how they shifted as they were picked up and translated into the American context before WWI (concerns with immigration, "dirty" whites, etc.). The section on the 1920s and 1930s, the heyday of eugenics in the U.S., should be expanded a bit, as should its popularity in other nations, including Germany.

The shift in U.S. opinions towards this over the 1930s should be outlined in more detail (reasons, specific cases which were in the media), and a little more focus on the ways in which eugenics became seen as a construction of Nazi racism by the 1960s, losing all of its respectable scientific supporters (with people like Shockley doing more to harm its reputation than help it). Then we get reproductive technology, bioethics, etc. by the 1980s, 90s, today, etc. and their struggles to deal with what eugenics was/is, whether their plans are or aren't eugenics, etc.

One of the things which interests me a lot professionally (and I think could be hinted at in the article, though there isn't any good work done on it yet) are perceptions of eugenics, such as when it became a big deal to the Swedes that they had a sterilization program, and how that re-orientates the discourse of genetics and biology after "discovering" something like that in you country's history ("discovering" is meant loosely -- none of these things were ever really "unknown," but they weren't made much a deal of until specific time periods, for specific reasons, etc.).

Anyway. Those are what I would think would improve this article, but that's just one game plan among many, and I encourage collective work more than any pretension to one architecture. But I would object, for reasons of POV, of anything which implied a clear separation from "historical eugenics" and "modern eugenics" -- in the genetic, historical, and bioethical literature, this distinction is almost never made, and if it is, it is done especially consciously, because most people don't see eugenics as a "then and now" sort of concept. --Fastfission 22:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't really want to seperate the concepts of "modern" and "historical" eugenics, but I do want to seperate the history of eugenics from the actual princples, and means of application. I got thaty idea after reading an encyclopedia article (in Encyclopedia Americana if I remember correctly) that was split that way. I find this article a bit confusing, but then, so is the general subject of eugenics (for example, the debate over whether it is pseudoscience or not - though there is a lot of pseudoscience in the history of the movement (and, probably, in the claims being made today), some aspects have more to do with social policy than with science). I don't know if a restructuration would improve things.

But then, there's only one way to know that : try ! :) I'll do an attempt on Talk:Eugenics/RestructurationAttempt Flammifer 06:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still working on it, I'll do a pause for now. I'm trying to seperate theory and practice, but it's not that easy ... I think the article needs splitting up anyway. Hmm. Flammifer 07:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, you can have a look at the way I'm thinking of changing the page, on Talk:Eugenics/RestructurationAttempt (with a section moved to Talk:Eugenics/History of Eugenics just to make it more convenient to copy pieces around). I believe it is interesting to document the various policies implemented.

I believe it's also interesting to document how the scientific concepts that led to eugenics varied, with most noticeably the influence of scientific racism.

So what do you think of such a change ? Does it still look like an attempt to differenciate "modern" and "ancient" eugenics ? I'm willing to work on making it presentable (now it's a scratchy version that's mainly for showing the structure), but not if it gets automatically reverted if I try to integrate it.

I believe that answers to questions like "What did/do eugenists want to change in humans ?" or "How were such policies implemented" should have their specific sections in the article. If I want to insert something about scientific racism in the current document, I wouldn't know where to put it. Adding new non-chronological section would also allow to make the history part lighter. Flammifer 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I don't mind "lightening" the historical section by making it more thematic (see below), but I don't think separating the history and the methodological sections are good. --Fastfission 4 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)

• I'd hate to lose any of the history section. I'm not sure why we would seperate the history of the ideas from the history of the implementation, particularly since it was often the same people involved in both sides. By splitting out topics for thematic treatment it seems that the same periods of time have to be referred to again and again. The only modern eugenics program that I have heard of is the Chinese one-child policy, but there is controversy over calling that program "eugenic." -Willmcw July 4, 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Perhaps, but now you can find people on the net talking about eugenics, and not just the history side of it. So, it's good to know what people mean by eugenics when theuy talk about it now, either to promote or criticize it. I don't think creating a seperate page on liberal eugenics is the best solution - the ideas are basically the same, it's just that the underlying scientific knowledge, as well as which social policies are considered acceptable, have changed.

So, even without any modern-day implementation of such policies, it's still worth speaking about the modern perspective.

(I do agree that splitting it up like that also tends to add to the redundancy of the article, which sucks.) Flammifer 4 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I have removed the "pseudoscience" category because mentioning in the intro that some consider it pseudoscience is clear enough. Not everyone considers it pseudoscience. Dsh34 13:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyone doesn't have to agree. But other editors have discussed this previously and the consensus seems to be that it should be in the article. I'm going to restore it. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, regarding this sentence:

• Supporters of eugenics argue that the post-World War II taboo against eugenics is an example of a genetic fallacy or, as Leo Strauss put it, "Reductio ad Hitlerum": "Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil".

Can we get a citation for which supporters have said this? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is ironic, because there must be something about the Nazis that made them especially evil besides just being 'the Nazis', right? And it's rather clear, it was their insistent belief in eugenics itself. Without the genocide, they'd be just another authoritarian dictatorship. Am I wrong? You can't diffuse the association of Eugenics with Nazism with a blanket refusal of all Nazi comparisons, not when the subject is the very thing that made the Nazis so evil.

Guys - The pseudoscience label is meaningless. Yes, eugenics is a social goal and therefore not a science, even though it might incorporate scientific measurements. Enviornmentalism is a social goal and never called a sceince, even though it may incorporate scientific measurements. Yet we don't label enviromentalism a pseudoscience! Therefore, I propose the pseudoscience elements of the article be explained as an undescriptive label-- everything that isn't a science could be called a pseudoscience, including every social goal.

Hmmm... I would personally argue that pseudo-science (or however it may be called) has a different condition than the one argued in the article. "given the complex of human genetics and culture, there is no scientific means to determining which characteristics might be ultimately desireable or undesrireable" Given the hypothetic case that we were to know the exactly how the genetic code constitutes the phenotype (genetics) and have an ethnography that completely depicts the culture this would still not give any scientific means to determine what characterstics is desireable. Although the environment is surely strongly shaped by culture there are other factors such as pathogenes etc. that will have an influence. As such the main point in my opinion is that the environment is in flux thus there is no phenotype that is ever superior to another, no matter how complex the culture or the genetic code. Thus the thrust of the argument should not be laid on complexity but the change of the complex structures.

This is ridiculous, the fact is some qualities are inherently superior to others, it will always be better to be stronger, tougher, quicker and more intelligent, how can it not be?

• Plenty of examples in the life sciences where bigger is not better (that is, not adaptive). In any event, the elimination of certain traits in favor of others which are thought to be better at the time presents all sorts of questions. Something which seems negative now may actually have an adaptive function we do not completely understand (i.e. sickle cell anemia, which in its incomplete form is a tolerance against malaria). --Fastfission 22:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose your right, an adaptation towards stupidity means that your children would be incapable of designing nuclear weapons or inventing firearms, but we all still agree that its better to be smart than stupid

Not really. If intelligence was all that mattered, we wouldn't have bacteria. Bacteria aren't intelligent or strong or tough at all and yet they continue to dominate the food chain. An increase in strength means an increase in size. An increase in size necessitates an increase in the amount of food required by the organism to survive and therefore in times of food shortages the organism we are describing would be at a distinct disadvatage compared to a smaller organism who does not require such a large food intake. These are all very shallow comparisons by the way. There is really no such thing as a "superior" organism because there is no criteria for defining such a creature and if such a creature could exist the process of Natural Selection would have created it. Eugenics is pseudoscience and the category stays.

Stupid/smart has nothing to do with it. The nervous system evolved as a mechanism to basically "predict the future"; in the most primitive systems, a neuron from the back connects to a muscle towards the front, etc., the entire principle being that if something chomped on the critter's rear end, the front end would pull it away before the entire animal was eaten. Nothing a human would call real smartness involved, just a little wiring. And the nervous system has evolved on that basis ever since. If the ability to really predict the future ever evolved, in something "unintelligent" like a lizard or an anthill, they'd leave us behind. Anyway, after due consideration, it's my conclusion that our "intelligence" is mostly the ability to record things and transmit them using language, on top of souped up monkey fiddling around skills. Otherwise, why hasn't our intelligence ever solved big philosophical questions? What we're good at is learning how to gimmick the physical world. Like I said, monkey fiddling around skills. Squirrels got the same thing, and it's hard to call a rodent "intelligent". Gzuckier 16:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Extermination

Another change I wonder about - you removed the last word of this sentence:

• Proposed means of doing so have included but are not limited to selective breeding, encouragement and discouragement of certain types of reproductive practices, genetic engineering, and extermination

with the comment

• Removing utterly ludicrous falsehood

Why is it ludicrous? Do you think that no one has ever proposed extermination as a means of reproductive control? Elsewhere the article says:

• During the 1930s and 1940s the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people who they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit," and killed tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled in their compulsory euthanasia programs.

I think the term "extermination" is justified. -Willmcw 19:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a citation, or preferably, a primary source, for the idea that any high-profile supporter of eugenics ever seriously suggested "extermination" as a eugenic method.

According to the book "Inheriting Shame: The Story of Eugenics and Racism in America" (Selden, 1999, p. 69) the eugenic methods advocated by textbooks during 1914-1948 were "Differential Birthrates for Superior" (60-70%), "Differential Birthrates for Inferior" (40-50%), "Immigration Restriction" (20%), "Segregation of Unfit (<20%), and "Sterilization of Unfit" (<20%).

It's worth noting that this book is opposed to eugenics, and if "extermination" was ever seriously suggested as a eugenic method, the author would have every incentive to say so, as it would bolster his position. Dsh34 21:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• During the 1930s and 1940s the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people who they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit," and killed tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled in their compulsory euthanasia programs.''

Do you dispute the accuracy of this sentence? -Willmcw 01:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see a primary source. Dsh34 01:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biesold, Horst, Crying Hands: Eugenics and Deaf People in Nazi Germany ISBN 1563680777, See pages 7-18. -Willmcw 04:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, that book isn't a primary source. Second, it only mentions abortion and sterilization. Abortion and sterilization are not the same as extermination. They are eugenic methods that I disagree with, and they were recommended by a minority of eugenicists, as indicated by Selden (1999) — upwards of 60% of textbooks recommended differential birthrates, while fewer than 20% recommended sterilization, and abortion isn't even mentioned. Dsh34 20:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Secondary (and tertiary) sources are entirely appropriate references for an encyclopedia. A primary source would be the records of Nazi Germany. I'm not going to dig those up for you. As for the contents of the book, are you sure you read it? "Euthanasia" is not a synonym for sterilization. -Willmcw 20:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw hit the nail on the head. I'm not sure what you'd call compulsory euthanasia programs -- the systematic killing of those "unfit" in hospitals -- as anything but elimination. The fact that the personell and methods moved from the hospitals to the death camps in the Nazi case underscores the point as well. In any event, "elimination" can be a whole lot more than out and out genocide, i.e.:

"Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life, tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit, and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race." -- Madison Grant, 1916.

I'm not sure "obliteration of the unfit", whether he means it by "diffential birth rates" (a fairly euphemistic approach to compulsory sterilization, no?) or any other way is not an advocacy of extermination. And in any event, Selden's data is based on U.S. textbooks, which are not necessarily represented of worldwide eugenics advocacy (in this case, in Germany), and are certainly not where you'd expect to find the vanguard of eugenic thought. That said, there is plenty in Madison Grant's work which edges precariously close to that line. Another example:

"Those who read these pages will feel that there is little hope for humanity, but the remedy has been found, and can be quickly and mercifully applied. A rigid system of selection through the elimination of those who are weak or unfit-in other words, social failures-would solve the whole question in one hundred years, as well as enable us to get rid of the undesirables who crowd our jails, hospitals, and insane asylums. The individual himself can be nourished, educated, and protected by the community during his lifetime, but the state through sterilization must see to it that his line stops with him, or else future generations will be cursed with an ever increasing load of victims of misguided sentimentalism. This is a practical, merciful, and inevitable solution of the whole problem, and can be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased, and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types."

The similarity with that last line and the mode of action taken during the Holocaust is worth noting, especially in light of Hitler's letter to Grant saying that this book was "his Bible." (All of these quotes are from The Passing of the Great Race, 1916, chapter 4, "The Competition of Races") --Fastfission 21:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am restoring "extermination" to the introduction based on these arguments which also express current consensus, imho.--AI 6 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

"Extermination" claim again

I still want to see a primary source advocating extermination in the name of eugenics. I have been reading through Nazi Germany primary source documents, and have been reading classic and historical primary source texts on eugenics, and there is no advocacy of "extermination" anywhere. There are collections of primary source documents here: [1] The closest thing to extermination is Hitler's authorization (Note: authorization, not order) of the use of euthanasia for badly diseased people. Voluntary euthanasia of terminally ill individuals is allowed in some areas today and does not equal extermination. Insinuating that it is is original research.

The idea that you don't want to read through primary source documents is not an excuse. They are by far the most important sources of information, especially for controversial topics. I still want to see a primary source to back up the "extermination" claim. Otherwise I am going to replace it. Dsh34 08:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that the article doesn't say eugenicists advocated extermination. Just that the nazis used extermination as a mean of eugenics.

Are you referring to euthanasia? If we want to say euthanasia, then we should say euthanasia, not "extermination". How come euthanasia is practiced today in the Netherlands and Belgium but no one accuses them of "extermination"? Dsh34 16:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, in Hitler authorizing "euthanasia" foir badly diseased people, what kind of euthanasia is it ? Is it the kind where the person doesn't necessarily ask for it ? Flammifer 09:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me a primary source for the claim that it was involuntarily applied? Dsh34 16:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

First, WP doesn't directly use primary sources, it uses secondary ones. Second, the article doesn't say anything about the "advocation" of extermination, it says... During the postwar period both the public and the scientific community largely associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, which included enforced racial hygiene and extermination, although a variety of regional and national governments maintained eugenic programs until the 1970s.

Since when does Wikipedia not use primary sources? Dsh34 17:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This statement is so widely documented and even standard that I find the request for a source somewhat ingenuous. Finally, since the dispute tag was not put up in accordance with WP policy, and the article has been misquoted by inference, I'm removing the tag. We can continue the discussion but this hardly amounts to a dispute. Wyss 16:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so if it's widely documented, let's see the documentation. And I still have not had my question answered as to why euthanasia is practiced today but not referred to as extermination. How was the dispute tag not in accordance with policy? I fully explained my objections on the talk page. Dsh34 17:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are unaware about the Nazi euthanasia program and its links to their eugenic racial hygiene movement, I in good spirit recommend reading chapter 7, "The Destruction of 'Lives Not Worth Living'", in Robert Proctor's Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard University Press, 1988), which is the best-respected and most highly-cited book on the Nazi eugenics programs in the English language. It can provide you with all of the primary sources you might ever require. You might as well educate yourself on this if you are going to talk about this subject with any authority. Those targeted (beginning with children under three, but quickly moving up the age bracket) were subject according to eugenic specifications, drawn up by the leading German eugenicists and racial hygienists, with Hitler's explicit approval. Most of the deaths were reported as being "natural" or of other causes to their family members, and the methods of killing ranged from simple starvation to more elaborate methods involving poisons and gas which were later transferred — with their technicians as well — for use in the death camps. --Fastfission 17:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try to get the book from the library later today. Again, euthanasia does not equal "extermination". If you want to say euthanasia, then please go ahead and say euthanasia. But don't use a different term. Dsh34 17:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't equate euthanasia with extermination. Please note that the article is careful to differentiate and qualify Nazi activities (some of which were loosely based on eugenics principles) as abuses. Moreover, the article does not equate the term "eugenics" with "Nazi" or "extermination." However, it is both helpful and IMO needful to mention the Nazi abuses, especially since they are so often conflated, sometimes mistakenly, sometimes not, with the history of eugenics. Wyss 17:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The Nazis called what they did "euthanasia", but it was a heavy euphemism (they also called the forced execution of the disabled "disinfection"). It was not euthanasia in an honest and voluntary sense (or at least with the permission of anybody involved), it was a program by which the state set standards at which point people could simply be executed for their body types or presumed genetic makeup. It was extermination in every sense of the word -- they were killing them like animals, like pests, like sores. The same methods and people then moved on to work in the death camps. It's grim stuff that you should educate yourself on. Nobody is trying to imply that this result need come from this philosophy, but it's part of its history and can't be wished away. If you'd like I can elaborate on this later in the article, if you feel it would make these things a bit more clear. --Fastfission 20:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience II

Eugenics is pseudoscience. The very concept is based on a flawed understanding of evolution. Implementing a long-term eugenics program would very likely produce the same results as inbreeding. By selecting certain traits and proclaiming them to be “superior” to their counterparts and only allowing individuals possessing these traits to reproduce, you weaken the human race by reducing genetic diversity. Natural selection is superior to eugenics in that it allows humans to adapt and evolve to changes in the environment. For example, many people would automatically assume that being tall and muscular is an advantage when compared to being short. However, in the event of a food shortage it is more advantageous to be short because you would not need to consume as much food to sustain yourself. Evolution is not a linear process. -Ubergod

Humanity has long removed itself from natural selection. As such there may be a factual basis for those concerned with the long term viability of the human gene pool. And, as point in fact, practices of animal husbandry and even of crop genetics are structually analogous to eugenics. It cases of livestock, we may breed animals close in family history in an attempt to amplify positive traits. Thus inbreeding can have positive effects. In fact, positive amplifications are just as likely as negative amplifications from inbreeding. Look at the case of Polynesian Ali'i (royalty) who maintained a long-standing practice on inbreeding (along with access to better nutrition) made them physically superior to their subjects. Inbreeding "good stock" can give you better stock. Inbreeding poor stock reinforces negative traits. - Delver58

There is absolutely no logical connection between pseudoscience and eugenics. Eugenics is simply an attempt to selectively breed humans; this may be done in a scientific or a pseudoscientific manner, of course. The main issue is a moral one, not one of whether the science is sound. If you need a reference, see The Lives to Come by Philip Kitcher, among many other such books. --Delirium June 30, 2005 18:54 (UTC)

I agree that eugenics is not necessarily pseudoscience. There were allegedly elements of pseudoscience in it in the past, but the idea in itself is not inherently pseudoscientific. Eugenics is simply any attempt to improve humanity from a genetic perspective. Selective breeding is one of several ways to achieve that goal. (I happen have reservations about selective breeding, because of the question of who to delegate the decisions to. The decisions shouldn't be delegated to a single person or entity, in order to prevent favoritism or abuse.) There are right and wrong ways to go about improving people from a genetic perspective, but the idea is not an inherently wrong one. Dsh34 30 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into an ethical debate at the moment, but I'd say that that isn't even necessary as far as the "pseudoscience" issue goes. Even if eugenics, in any form whatsoever, is utterly immoral, that doesn't imply that it's pseudoscience. --Delirium June 30, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

What part of eugenics is not pseudoscience? We've previosuly established that eugenics is widely called a pseudoscience in the scientific community. Can you provide any counter-citations that indicate it is a science? Thanks, -Willmcw June 30, 2005 22:13 (UTC)

If you'll look above, I did cite a book. Nazi eugenics I've seen called a pseudoscience, but I know of no person in the modern debate on eugenics that considers it inherently a pseudoscience. Even informed opponents of eugenics do not make that claim, but instead argue that it is unethical. Indeed, opponents of eugenics tend to find the scientifically-rigorous supporters of eugenics to be the most dangerous, since an incompetent quack is much less dangerous than an unethical but rigorous scientist. An anti-eugenics reference that takes this view is Our Posthuman Future by Francis Fukuyama, among many others. --Delirium June 30, 2005 22:19 (UTC)

There is a modern debate? It's been dead - considered pseudoscience - for fifty years. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Yes, a quite large one. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that it's been dead or considered pseudoscience for fifty years. Using the term "eugenics" has been somewhat taboo until recently due to Nazi associations, but the idea of selective breeding, genetic engineering, or other such processes being brought to bear in an attempt to improve the average genetic quality of the human race (by some sort of definition of "quality") is an ongoing debate. Nearly every university with a biology or philosophy program will have a Bioethics class that discusses this at length. The idea of designer babies has gotten a lot of press and controversy lately as well. --Delirium June 30, 2005 22:30 (UTC)

To clarify, I have no problem with properly-attributed assertions that eugenics is a pseudoscience being included in the article. I simply have a problem with Wikipedia stating as fact that "eugenics is a pseudoscience" through its categorization system, since that's plainly untrue. (In case it's relevant, I'm a scientist and oppose eugenics on ethical grounds.) --Delirium June 30, 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Right, so let's continue this discussion at category talk:Eugenics then. Dunc|☺ 30 June 2005 22:25 (UTC)

Is that the better location? Either one, let's decide. -Willmcw June 30, 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Delirium, with all due respect, we have already decided that categorizing Eugenics into Category:Pseudoscience was appropriate based on these scientific journalist citations. However, some still disagreed, despite the references.--AI 30 June 2005 23:15 (UTC)

The concept of eugenics as defined in the opening paragraph of the article is not a pseudoscience -- it's simply the application to humans of a number of animal husbandry techniques. A number of implementations of eugenics have been pseudoscientific, generally due to the definitions of "unfit" or "superior" used. (But I wouldn't be surprised to find a Soviet implementation crippled by Lamarckism.) --Carnildo 30 June 2005 23:41 (UTC)

Have there been any implementations of eugenics that have been solidly scientific? (And I mean eugenics, not genetics or other fields). Thanks, -Willmcw July 1, 2005 00:05 (UTC)

September interjection

I think I can sum this up pretty well - Eugenics is sound science that has much emperical evidence in it's favor, such as corn and the modern dog. The idea that prefered genetic traits can be promoted in a system by only allowing those with said traits to reproduce is directly in line with the very theory of evolution, and so cannot be considered anything but very solid and very real science. However, the idea that selecting certain traits to promote at the expense of others will result in an improved species is firmly in the realm of psudoscience to the point of absurdity.

Point one: Eugenics invariably results in a monoculture. Selective breeding for certain traits invariably excludes countless unconsidered traits, and the ones which remain are quickly dispersed throughout the intentionally smaller society, just as the system intends. However, this has the obvious effect of drastically reducing the genetic diversity of the species, resulting in a monoculture situation which is prime for an extinction event - as shown by Panama disease's obliteration of the 'genetically superior' (And very tasty) "Gros Michael" banana back in the 1950s.

Point two: Nature Vs Nurture. We presently do not know which traits are genetic and which are environmental, and attempting to breed people with a trait is an act of outright futility if the cause lies in how the person was raised. A perfect example of this is domestic abuse - is the trait for abusing one's children a genetic flaw which could be bred out of society, or is it that people who are abused as children are psycologically affected so as to become abusive themselves?

Point three: Selection of candidates. Which traits will benefit humanity? Which traits will harm it? What unexpected and therefore inherently unplannable events should we select genes for? What are the chances that something considered a defect today will not increase the survivability of the species in the future?

In summary, the idea that desired traits can be promoted through selective breeding is fact, the idea of actually attempting to use it to improve the human race is pure psudoscience. -Fdgfds Sept 24, 2005

No, the notion that traits can be selected through the application of genetic science is widely accepted, while the notion of "improving" traits is considered a question of social policy (eugenics) since there is no known means of scientifically defining an improvement. Meanwhile, people have been practicing eugenics since at least the neolithic, like it or not. Wyss 14:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Re Fdgfds: "We presently do not know which traits are genetic and which are environmental." Data on heritability is available for many traits. The heritability of IQ, for example, is on average estimated to be ~60%, and is supported by eough data that it is uncontroversial among mainstream experts in that field. Media portrayal on these kinds of topics, however, has been shown to be poor, leaving many people in the dark.

Re Wyss: "There is no known means of scientifically defining an improvement." A scientifically defined improvement in IQ would probably be as simple as an increased score. --Nectar ^T 21:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I will concede that many traits are known to be genetic, however I maintain that there are still a significant number for which we have not been able to find a definate cause. However, I contest the asertion that an 'improvement' would be an increased score - an increased score of *what*, I ask? An IQ test does not determine capability for intelligence, but knowledge. In addition, most of the problems with Eugenics can't even be tested for let alone be givin numbers which can be meaningfully compared to each other, such as the abstract concepts of "survivability". Irregardless, the effects of a eugenics program cannot be estimated even remotely accurately generations after the program has started. Fdgfds 04:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Fdgfds

No, that would be a social judgement. Never mind the known weaknesses in IQ testing (my IQ's through the roof and I happen to know I'm a complete raving idiot :), there is no emperical way to define improvement as it relates to this species. Any notions along those lines are non-scientific (helpful and ok, maybe- sometimes, but not science). So we can likely use science (genetics) to produce kids who score higher on IQ tests, yeah, but whether or not that's an improvement is unknown. Wyss 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[Restart indentation] Medical treatment seeks to "treat," or "improve [the state of"[2] diseases. By the logic of the argument under discussion, that is pseudoscientific, for it cannot be scientifically determined whether not having a disease is an "improved" state.

Also, the predictive value of IQ for life outcomes such as job performance, socioeconomic advancement, and social pathologies is well established and uncontroversial among mainstream experts in that field (see IQ or this Linda Gottfredson Scientific American article). Media portrayal on this also has been shown to be poor.--Nectar ^T 00:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The reference to medical treatment refers rather sloppily to improving "the state of diseases" (a non-sequiter, IMO), not the species. Dodgy prose aside, that wouldn't necessarily be pseudo scientific, unless we're talking about aromatherapy or something (joke). As for the IQ studies, yep, it's all true but as I said, efforts to increase IQ across the population, while seemingly attractive (and maybe even desireable), are not scientifically correlatable with improvement of the species since we cannot scientifically identify what such an improvement would be (in very simple, social terms, one person's birth defect can be another's valued family trait etc... but that really is an oversimplification, this quickly gets way complicated and convoluted). However, so far as social policy goes, one way or another it's open season on trying. As I've said before, people have been involved in eugenics since at least the neolithic. Wyss 00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's accurate to say medicine seeks to improve the state of medical disorders. A eugenics program seeking to improve hereditary traits by reducing the number of children born with Tay Sachs would produce results that meet the common definition of medical improvement. If that's true, such applications do not fall under the criticism under discussion, that improvement is not a scientifically definable term. (Such programs are considered by eugenicists to be examples of eugenics). --Nectar ^T 07:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In response to Fdgfds, if genetic diversity were to be reduced, wouldn't that be dysgenic rather than eugenic, given that it is bad rather than good? Also, the term eugenics does not necessarily encompass only selective breeding — that is only one technique that has been proposed to achieve the stated goal of improvement of hereditary features. Dsh34 02:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That brings in the objectiveness of the term "improvement". You're correct that selective breeding is technically only a small portion of eugenics, however any selective breeding reduces diversity, and thus by its classification we can see that a "Eugenics" program does not need to result in or be expected to result in an overall improvement to the species that is the subject, nor an improvement in matters which are unimportant to the people conducting the experiment. I would like to note that eugenics programs aside from selective breeding are generally not reffered to with the term eugenics, they are givin names like "Gene therapy" or "retroviral therapy" specifically to distance the fields from the idea of selective breeding which the name evokes for almost every person who is aware of the concepts. Fdgfds 05:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)Fdgfds

July continued

A

It would be pretty difficult to do empirical studies on it today for several reasons: it is taboo, it takes generations before an effect is observed, and it would be difficult to have many people practice it for the purpose of the study and because it would be difficult to quantify and verify the actions of the people practicing it. However, I can think of at least one incidence in history where eugenics has been performed and we can see the results. According to some scholars, the Ashkenazi Jews practiced it in their mate selection choices, and it has been empirically observed that today they are the most intelligent and successful (measured in terms of academic, financial, and intellectual success such as Nobel Prizes) group on Earth.

To use another example, eugenics in the form of genetic counseling has successfully eliminated or reduced the incidence and impact of certain genetic diseases.

Several notable and respected sources such as the Columbia Encyclopedia have called eugenics a science, as I've posted on Category_talk:Eugenics. Here is another interesting quote: "Richard Lynn’s 2001 book Eugenics: A Reassessment punctures the myth that eugenics was a 'pseudo-science.' Lynn’s analysis shows just how firmly eugenics was grounded on empirical genetic discoveries in the related fields of health and biomedical science." [3] Dsh34 1 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

The old Ashkenazi Jews did not practice eugenics as it was not developed until Galton's day. Many (all?) societies used one method or another to cull the weakest or discourage them from reproducing. It was the early attempt by Galton and others to wed that age-old practice with science (and later, state involvement) which created eugenics. The modern efforts are not called "eugenics" either. They are called Genetic counseling. Lastly, the Occidental Quarterly is not a scientific journal. It is a journal of European-American nationalist thought, so their view on this is likely to be heavily biased. Cheers, -Willmcw July 1, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Who says genetic counseling is not eugenics? Who says pre-Galtonian attempts to improve hereditary features were not eugenics? Eugenics is any attempt to improve human hereditary features. As to the quote from the Occidental Quarterly, please attack the idea, not the source of the idea. Otherwise you have commited the genetic fallacy. It does not matter if it the O.Q. is not a scientific journal. I have already provided several quotes from highly respected sources, such as the Columbia Encyclopedia, that have called eugenics a science. Dsh34 1 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

A few things:

• Genetic counselors themselves do not consider their work eugenics. It is true that some people wonder whether their work is (most in that field deny it, pointing to the ethics of nondirectiveness and the fact that they operate on an individual rather than populational level as key differences), and such is noted in the article.
• Though some have at times argued that some early practices were forms of "eugenics", it is an ahistorical assumption and highly speculative. What were their state goals? Did they have stated goals? Did they formulate them in terms of heredity? Eugenics is characterized by desires to change the human species as a whole, and it is characterized by attempts to apply ideas of heredity to humans (it of course need not be genetics of any sort). Applying terms backwards is historically problematic business -- it is hard enough to apply something as formless as this in general, much less to apply it backwards.
• You cannot just label things eugenics as you see fit, especially given that it is a "taboo" term as you rightly call it. The fact that most of these practioners of things you'd label as "eugenics" vehemently deny that they are practicing eugenics is worth reflecting on. "Eugenics" is considered a strictly historical phenomena by most -- modern efforts have different names and largely different goals -- and this historical phenomena is marked by pseudoscientific practices and beliefs. Just because you are one of the handful of internet people who think that eugenics should be embraced and not taboo does not make it so. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Does "eugenics" refers only to the historical movement? Didn't Galton say that eugenics is "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage"? By that defition, modern day genetic counseling in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of genetic diseases would fall under the term "eugenics". Non-coercive and voluntary, yes, but it is still an attempt to improve people genetically and therefore still "eugenics" by Galton's definition. Galton's definition is also roughly approximate for the definition I have formulated myself.

The definition of "eugenics" has an effect on whether I support it. In, fact, the definition of eugenics has an effect on whether I'd say it should be supported. If eugenics refers to the specific historical movement which included compulsory sterilization, I would probably have much more reservations as I do not support compulsory sterilization. On the other hand, if eugenics refers to any attempt to improve heritable and genetic human qualities, of course it should be supported. Dsh34 2 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

No offense, but whether or not you (or I) support eugenics should have no bearing on this article. Certainly eugenics was the movement that led to forced sterilization. -Willmcw July 2, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Eugenics, even in the historical sense, does not necessarily entail forced sterilization. As I mentioned before, an analysis by Selden (1999) showed that the majority of American texts advocated differential birth rates, not sterilization. Dsh34 2 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

Well yes, under a pre-genetic, overly general definition, many things fall under the category of "eugenics", but things did not stop with Galton, and his definition of "eugenics" and his idea of "eugenic programs" does not include most of what was later called and is currently referred to as "eugenics".

It sounds to me like you are explicitly trying to make the definition of eugenics fit your own philosophy. This is not a good approach to writing an encyclopedia. A better approach would be, "What do people usually mean when they say or hear the word in question?" Generally it is something more akin to the usage on the Eugenics Archive website, a site written by ethicists, historians, scientists, and funded by the Human Genome Project. Which is to say, the phrase "eugenics" usually refers to the historical movement primarily. When something is called "eugenics" today, it is not a reference to its Galtonian definition, it is a reference to a philosophy which was associated with a long history and a lot of things which are in today's political/ethical climate considered quite unsavory and uses of science which were considered quite unscientific.

My advice to you: if you are really going to be someone to advocate "eugenics", you'd better make sure you understand what the term means to other people, if you're interested in not being consistently misunderstood. If you think that the term "eugenics" should be reclaimed and disassociated with all of its uses in the past, Wikipedia is not the place to start that campaign. Personally I think such a thing is hopeless, as did the eugenicists of the 1940s who explicitly ditched the term "eugenics" and practiced "crypto-eugenics" (their words, not mine) through other means. For most of the world, "eugenics" means Nazis, and if they are a little more informed, it means forced sterilizations and bad science. Even Lynn knows that -- why else would it need a "reassessment" to "puncture the myth" that eugenics is bad science and linked to the Nazis, if that wasn't what the majority of people (including scientists, historians, etc.) thought was the case? --Fastfission 2 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)

All of the reference works I've consulted describe eugenics as the science itself, not the particular historical movement. And no, an encyclopedia should not present popular opinion as fact. When popular opinion is discordant with the facts it becomes particularly important to separate facts from opinion.

If eugenics refers only to the historical movement, why have all the reference works stated otherwise?

It seems more to me like the anti-eugenics movement is the one trying to manipulate the meaning of eugenics and associate it in the public mind with things like sterilization, Hitler, and racism. Galton's definition and my definition are different from this manipulated meaning. Dsh34 2 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

There still is more censensus saying Eugenics is a pseudoscience and therefore the category tag is going back on the article.--AI 1 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

The "genetic fallacy" is nonsensical -- of course the source of information should be taken into account when information is cited. History is of course relevant to thinking about future ideas. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

So you are saying that the genetic fallacy is not actually a fallacy? Dsh34 2 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

• I'm saying the "genetic fallacy" is junk in this context. Of course the source of a quote is important for evaluating its truth. It is not our place to evaluate its "logic" -- that's original research (whether or not Lynn's book "punctured the myth" is not our place to judge). When applied to factural information I think it is not a true fallacy, no. When applied to certain types of contextually independent argumentation, then it can be relevant, but such schemes are fairly rare. --Fastfission 2 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

• Don't remove Category:Pseudoscience until this discussion is resolved.--AI 2 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

If there's no consensus so far, why is the right given to include the category as opposed to removing it? If anything, a lack of consensus invalidates the ability of the article to be categorized in that manner. Are you disputing Columbia Encyclopedia, Merriam-Webster, and CancerWEB Online's description of eugenics as a science? Dsh34 2 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

There is concensus, look at the archives of this talk page. If you dispute categorizing this article under pseudoscience, then you can put the dispute tag on the article.--AI 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me exactly in what manner eugenics is pseudoscience? For example, provide a scientific explanation of how it doesn't work? Dsh34 2 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

Use of the category tag is based on concensus built in earlier discussion here in the talk page which examed various citations of the scientific community.--AI 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

I refuted those citations by providing other citations which have called eugenics a science. Indeed, some, such as Merriam-Webster and CancerWEB Online even defined it as a science. See Category_talk:Eugenics#Citations_calling_eugenics_a_science. Dsh34 3 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

I brought the following citations over from Category talk:Eugenics so that the debate can occur in one place, prefereably here (according to concensus). Dsh34 you can add your citations if you have any, but do not remove Category:Pseudoscience from the article until this is resolved.--AI 3 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)

What gives you the right to keep the category on as opposed to keeping it off, if there is no consensus, neither here, nor in academia, nor in reference works, that it belongs in that category? Dsh34 3 July 2005 00:28 (UTC).

Would you like to retract your statement?--AI 3 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

Citations

Pseudoscience

• In the name of the pseudoscience of eugenics, Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime exterminated millions of Jews, Gypsies, mental patients, and disabled people between ... Science
• The results demonstrate that eugenics was not an isolated movement whose significance is confined to the histories of genetics and pseudoscience, but was ... American Journal of Public Health
• From those [American and German] eugenic programs, eugenics is generally regarded as a pseudoscience in modern world. Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics
• It becomes apparent that the drafters of this legislation are just now discovering the pseudoscience of eugenics. Canadian Medical Association Journal
• Eugenics was in any case a grotesque misuse of science (and promulgation of pseudoscience), but it was easily adapted by the Nazis,... International Review of Psychiatry
• Eugenics was a political movement fueled by pseudoscience and an imperfect uderstanding of the principles of Mendelian genetics. Public Understanding of Science
• This foray into "social physics" was controversial, and led to a number of unsavoury developments in pseudoscience such as the eugenics movement,... Astronomy and Geophysics
• For a time, the doctrine of eugenics exerted considerable influence on American society. Based largely on political and social prejudices, the pseudo-science was taught at schools and universities. The University of Virginia
  • On the same page: The University of Virginia was home to supporters of the science of eugenics

Science

• The University of Virginia was home to supporters of the science of eugenics. University of Virginia [4]
  • On the same page:Based largely on political and social prejudices, the pseudo-science was taught at schools and universities.
• The science of improving stock, whether human or animal. Definition from Webster's dictionary [5]
• a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary [6]
• the science that deals with the improvement of races and breeds, especially the human race, through the control of hereditary factors. Webster's New Universal Dictionary [7]
• The scientific study of artificial selection towards a particular set of desired characteristics. - CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary [8]
• Sir Francis Galton , who introduced the term eugenics, is usually regarded as the founder of the modern science of eugenics - Columbia Encyclopedia [9]
• Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), Founder of the science of 'eugenics' - National Portrait Gallery [10]
  • On the same page: Eugenics, as he called it, enjoyed wide currency around 1900 but was discredited after the rise and fall of Nazism.
    • As I mentioned before, the fact that the article says it is discredited has nothing to do with the fact that it says it is a science. Dsh34 3 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
      • Then it is a dubious source?--AI 3 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
• the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage. - Francis Galton [11]
  • The material on this page is from 1904. Galton is not an impartial observer.
    • Galton's definition should carry the most weight since he invented the term! Dsh34 3 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

• Then we should also classify it as a religion. "[Eugenics] must be introduced into the national consciousness as a new religion." [12] Anyway, obviously just because somebody calls their practices a "science" does not make it a science. In fact it makes it especially deserving of the title of "pseudoscience" if it is not scientific, because it is explicitly claiming that it is scientific. --Fastfission 3 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Here is the actual quote.:

..."and Thirdly it must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion." - Francis Galton

Still, I agree with Fastfission. Maybe Galton wasn't a pioneer in science, but a fascist dictator of a new ideology, no wonder the Nazi's loved it.--AI 3 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

(I don't think the "thirdly" really changes things. It is well known that Galton regarded eugenics with a religious zeal, and thought that scientists should be the new priesthood of his day. But anyway.) Galton was a great pioneer in science, such is not doubted. But what he called "eugenics" was very vague and nothing of the character of the term which evolved in the 1910s through the 1930s, which is what the term generally refers to today. His idea of the role of state government was that of a 19th century British liberal, not the 20th-century authoritarian version, he also did not know very much about the biology of heredity. But anyway, appealing to 19th century definitions of something which evolved into something quite different (I think Galton would be appalled by what "eugenics" meant in the 20th century) does not help us much today. What is important is to capture what people mean when they say or hear "eugenics", which is surely not the Galtonian sense of it (frankly, most people don't even have the slightest idea what Galton's view of heredity was and how it differed from the Darwinian view, the Mendelian view, or the modern synthesis). --Fastfission 3 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Reverts by Dsh34

There is concensus within the involved Wikipedia contributors and in "academia" that Eugenics is a pseudoscience. Discussion also took place on Category:Eugenics. Also, note that concensus agreed to keep the debate in one place, here Talk:Eugenics.--AI 3 July 2005 00:43 (UTC)

If there's a consensus within academia that eugenics is a pseudoscience, why have Columbia Encyclopedia calls it a science, and Merriam-Webster, CancerWEB Online, and Webster's New Universal Dictionary defined it a science? And given that they have variously called or defined it as a science, how can you claim there's a consensus? I have not seen a single reference work yet that defines it as a pseudoscience. The citations calling it pseudoscience are from works of opinion, and so far no citations from reference works have been provided that do so. Dsh34 3 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

The scientists have called it a pseudoscience. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are not scientists.--AI 3 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

The man who coined the term eugenics defined it as a science. Was Galton not a scientist? Dictionaries and encyclopedias consult scientists in their preparation and because they reflect collective consensus and are scrutinized for neutrality and accuracy they should be regarded as more reliable than works written by single authors. Dsh34 3 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)

Additionally, you claim there is a consensus within Wikipedia contributors that it is pseudoscience, but so far I, Delirium, and Scandum object to categorizing it under pseudoscience. You, Fastfission, and Willmcw want to categorize it under pseudoscience. We are split 50-50, hardly a consensus. Dsh34 3 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about that.--AI 3 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

Due to past encounters (user:Dnagod) I am not inclined to assume that every username connected to this article belongs to a separate person. I apologize for no longer assuming good faith. If we are counting heads, we should also count several editors who have previously commented on this issue here and on the category page. This matter has been raised several times before. -Willmcw July 3, 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Marxism was defined by its espousers as a "science". That does not make it a science. Galton also defined eugenics as a religion, mind you. --Fastfission 3 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

I don't object much to the pseudoscience category tag, but I wouldn't consider eugenics neither a science nor a pseudoscience. I think a few of the citations up there ("Eugenics was in any case a grotesque misuse of science (and promulgation of pseudoscience)", "Eugenics was a political movement fueled by pseudoscience") back that up.

I object to the "it's either a science or a pseudoscience" debate - even though some founding members may have called Marxism a "science" (which is hardly indicative of something not being pseudoscience, by the way), I don't think it's worth branding as either science or pseudoscience.

The bit about what is usually meant by eugenics (something general like "artificially improving the gene pool", Galton's original theory, or movement assovciated with scientific racism and coerced sterilization in the XXth century ?) probably should be mentioned in the article. Flammifer 4 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

Citation of internation concensus

Here is a quote of international concensus--AI 3 July 2005 01:04 (UTC)

And you are claiming there is international consensus on a quote because it appears in an journal with the word "International" on it? I don't get it. Dsh34 3 July 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Yes I am, but I could be wrong.--AI 4 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Eugenics was in any case a grotesque misuse of science (and promulgation of pseudoscience)... International Review of Psychiatry. "The International Review of Psychiatry is the premier review journal in the field with a truly international authorship and readership. Each bimonthly issue is dedicated to a specific theme relevant to psychiatry, edited by recognized experts on the topic," - Routeledge: Taylor & Francis Journals Online [13]

New Sections

As a follow up on the "possible reworking" section earlier up (and stuff on Talk:Eugenics/RestructurationAttempt), I created new sections on "aspects of human nature to change", and on eugenic policies.

Now, I'm not satisfied with the title "aspects of human nature to change" - does anyone have a better name for what's in there ? Maybe just 'scientific history of eugenics" or "science behind eugenics" ? I want something about the scientific discourse (or absence of it) behind the movement.

I believe such new sections are useful because they allow to answer questions on "when and where were forced sterilization policies implemented ?", and, well, it just makes things mor granular.

Also I felt there needed to be a bit more on the links between scientific racism and eugenics, something that wasn't much covered in the article yet.

I think this may allow to make the science / pseudoscience side of things a bit clearer. I'm fairly confused as to whether there should be a pseudoscience label and don't mind either way. I think large parts of eugenics shouldn't be considered pseudoscience not because they're good science, but rather because they're not about science - i.e. the whole "Eugenic policies" thing is more about social policies than science.

Now, those sections are a bit light, I know, but heck, the article's already long enough. What I'd like to do is move some parts from the history part into the new sections, making the history part lighter. Any comments / objections ? Flammifer 3 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Please don't make massive changes to the article structure until they've been discussed. Your current additions are not at all complete and I don't think it works well. I'm trying to change it back. --Fastfission 3 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

Changes, NPOV

I reverted most of the changes made over the last day. I don't think Flammifer's restructuring was helpful at all, I also think it made the article more or less un-readable. I'm of course not saying that it should be frozen in stone, but I think major restructuring should be discussed a bit more first, in part because changing the structure often makes it hard to change it back without erasing a number of changes made since then. I went back over the changes made since then and personally I only agreed with some of them. I think trying to adhere to the 1904 definition by Galton is incorrect and very POV. Most modern mainstream literature on eugenics breaks it into the "negative" and "positive" aspects. Even Galton sanctioned that, honestly -- I'll look up the reference later. It is also clear from comments above that Dsh34's preference for it is more related to his own ideological desires than from any sense of honest editing. Oh, I also removed the totally disputed tag because I thought it was incorrect. I don't see any disputation of the facts in the article. As for the category, well, I have mixed feelings at the moment about the use of a pseudoscience category in general. Either way I don't think such a simple categorization is much of a basis for a NPOV dispute -- I think it has been shown previously that enough mainstream people think it is pseudoscience for it to at least carry the categorical tag, if we are going to use such tags at all. --Fastfission 3 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

I agree that a NPOV dispute tag for a conflict about a category is a bit exagerated - who looks at categories anyway ? I wouldn't put eugenics in the same box as, say, pyramid healing and perpetual motion machines, because I think "pseudoscience" doesn't cover social policies, even if they suck. However I can accept the category tag on the basis that a lot of the supposed scienitific justifications for eugenic policies were way into pseudoscience land.

(About the restructuration : I took care only to add things at the end, not change the whole article, since it isolated the new, alien bit. Integrating it better into the article was the next step, but I prefered to wait for feedback. Oh well, I'm not going to go into an edit war ...) Flammifer 4 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)

My proposed article structure

If we are really concerned with changing the structure of the article, here's how I think it should be arranged:

• Introduction: What is and was eugenics?
• History
  • Galton and British eugenics, 19th-early 20th century
    • Origins in Galton's view of heredity, 19th century Britain
    • Eugenics as an ethos
    • Eugenics as a science
  • USA eugenics, 1910-1930s
    • Eugenics popularity (textbooks, too)
    • Immigration restriction
    • Sterilization and segregation
    • Anti-miscegenation
  • German eugenics 1930-1945
    • Racial hygiene
    • Sterilization
    • Euthanasia
  • Eugenics in other countries (Scandinavia, South America)
  • Reaction to German eugenics and racial theories
    • Later reactions to eugenics in other countries (USA, Sweden, etc.)
• Current debates
  • Historical debates
    • What is/was eugenics?
    • Was eugenics "bad science" or was it "good science" used poorly?
  • Eugenics in ethical literature
    • Is eugenics inherently wrong/unethical, or is it just the method used?
  • Eugenics and genetic engineering
    • Individual vs. population
    • Designer babies
  • Eugenics and state policies
    • Differential birth rates
    • Abortion as eugenics?
    • Genetic screening (Cyprus) -- is it eugenics?

The basic idea would be to arrange things essentially chronologically, but with subsections of thematic arrangement. I am pretty busy lately but I'd be happy to try and contribute to this as best I could. I'm happy to cite anything I put in, and I'm also happy to elaborate on details of what I mean by each section above. My general POV, I might as well state, is that I am an academic historian and I'm doing this from the position of someone who has read most of the secondary historical literature on the subject, has done primary research in this field myself, and is pretty familiar with the questions about eugenics raised in modern ethical literature. --Fastfission 3 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

I'd consider that an improvement - I don't claim to know that much about the subject, I'm just not that satisfied with the present article. For example, I'm not sure it makes clear enough what is meant by "a closet eugenicist" - does that imply believing in Galton's theories which may today be considerd pseudoscience (or severely outdated science) ? The idea of eugenics implied by "closet eugenicist" implies something beyond the history of eugenics, so I'm in favour of a section on "what is eugenics".

As for the state of the current debates on eugenics, I don't know much about them. I've seen the issue raised a couple of times on bulletin boards, and the focus was not much on the history side of it. I have no idea of what the ethical litterature has to say about it, I wouldn't mind a summary :) Flammifer 4 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)

A "closet eugenicist" means that he doesn't want to be accused of secretly having a eugenic agenda. That is, it is a fear of being associated with eugenics which prompted the creation of the HGP's ethics program. I don't think bulletin boards are a good source for this -- the internet is fairly disconnected from mainstream scholarship in this and many other issues. --Fastfission 6 July 2005 11:19 (UTC)

What is and was eugenics ?

How about adding a section at the beginning ?

Nowdays, the term "eugenics" can refer either to a specific scientific movement that was quite influent in the first half of the 20th century, or to the general idea of artificially improving the human gene pool.

While eugenics as a scientific disciplin has mostly disappeared, due to it's association with scientific racism and pseudoscience, as well as it's replacement with genetics, one can still find advocates of liberal eugenics as a social policy.

Hmm, that's a bit short (mainly trying to summarize recent discussions on this page), and I still think the distinction between the general idea of eugenics (practiced since antiquity, etc.) and the specific scientific movement is a bit artificial. Any suggestinos for putting that differently ? "being a closet eugenicist" and "is abortion eugenics ?" or "is family counseling eugenics" does point to something beyond the scientific movement, but I don't know if the distinction is sufficient for giving several definitions.

Maybe something on the lines of "eugenics is a social philosophy that gave rise to a scientific movement, that is now abandoned / replaced by genetics" ? Hmmm ... Flammifer 5 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

There is no need to change the introductory sentence. It's fine. --CJ 6 July 2005 09:30 (UTC)

I'm not talking about changing the introductory sentence, but rather on expanding a biton "what is and was eugenics", possibly in a new section. I still don't think that only sticking to history is good - the introductory part is already fairly bloated, so moving a bit of it into a new section and expanding a bit following what's been discussed here (is it pseudoscience ? How wide is the term ?) may be an improvement. I also think a reference to liberal eugenics should be made.

Maybe those changes should be done in the introductory section without creating a new section ? But I still think the intro shouldn't be the only part that's not about history ... Flammifer 6 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)

Agreed. The introductory section could be a little shorter and there could be some more details about the contemporary situation (especially the so-called "eugenics through the back-door" option - i.e. genomics). But eugenics is defo a social philosophy and not "a science" - in any real sense of the word "scientific", unlike for instance chemistry or physics. In the past marxist philosophers have sometimes claimed that their work was "scientific"; but these days nobody - not even die hard marxists - would support such a view. So, of course eugenics is a "pseudoscience". If eugenics is a “science”, then, so is the study of the paranormal – which has been known to use the products of science and technology to detect spiritual matter.--CJ 6 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)

My only problem with it is that it portrays this "liberal eugenics" as a common and fairly well-known thing. Such is not the case in my experience -- it is certainly not advocated by any key political or scientific figures. (To give you a benchmark of its penetration into discourse, the term gets a total of two hits on JSTOR, and just one hit on the entire NYT, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal historical ProQuest searches, and a paltry 600 misc. hits on google) But anyway, I will take a look at all of this a bit closer when I have a chance; my fear is promoting a fringe movement to the status of mainstream.

Anyway, I think such a section would be very useful to start off with — somewhat of an extended introduction focusing on the bare issues, perhaps bulleting out some of the different types of eugenics and different interpretations. --Fastfission 6 July 2005 11:26 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the distinction that's made between "eugenics"and "liberal eugenics" - they're basically about the same idea. I haven't heard of the term "liberal eugenics" before coming to wikipedia. I think that when someone says "I think eugenics may not be such a bad idea", most of the time he'd be talking about what is called around here "liberal eugenics". that's why I'd eventually be in favour of integrating the whole of the liberal eugenics back in here. Instead of having : "This is eugenics, boo, evil, bad, nazi, and this is liberal eugenics, good, modern !", we could have "this is eugenics, in the past it's proponents used to want this this this and this, now there are much less of them, nobody listens to them and they only want this" - or something like that. For a start, that'd get rid of the silly edit guerilla going on at the liberal eugenics article.

But that's a bit of a big task for an article under such heavy crossed fire :) For now, I'd be happy with having a better coverage of eugenics.

Oh, also, yes, about my POV : I don't believe that eugenics is necessarily a bad thing (especially after reading the What you can't say essay), but I suspect that even once you take out the coercive policies and racism aspect of it, what's left may still have too much pseudoscience and fuzzy thinking to be worth bothering about. Some bits of it make sense and deserve a fair trial, which shouldn't be an excuse for leaving out the dirty bits. I'm more interested in what it's worth as an idea than what it gave rise to in the past. Flammifer 6 July 2005 16:32 (UTC)

People in most (if not all) cultures have been practicing eugenics in their mating habits and on their offspring since at least the neolithic. It's inevitable some would begin trying to apply acquired knowledge (what one might receive as "science" at a particular time and place) to its refinement. It's equally inevitable that both misinterpretations and abuses would follow. How does one separate the spikes of abuse, the genocides and racist castes for example, from describing the trajectory of something we may be doing instinctively? I agree that combining both articles could ignite a flaming edit war, yet separating them does seem unique to WP. Wyss 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we could talk about "involuntary eugenics" (used for clarification rather than as a formal definition) to talk about what happens when there's no concerted eugenics policy, but still some action at the individual level that has a similar result on the bigger scale - be it infanticide in ancient cultures, or modern-day reprogenetics ? Calling natural selection (chosing qualtiy mates, etc.) a form of eugenics would be exagerated. Eugenics is supposed to be something that kicks in when natural selection breaks down. But the link between natural selection (or mate selection or whatever) and eugenics is interesting. Flammifer 7 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

What self-aware, rationalizing people have been doing for tens of thousands of years may fall outside classic natural selection, for example community-tribe mandated marriages, choosing favoured children for cultural opportunities and roles and of course infanticide or even abortion. Part of the point I'm making is that wherever one draws the line for a definition, it's going to be fuzzy and as you say, it is interesting, especially when the moral arguments start to kick in. Wyss 7 July 2005 09:16 (UTC)

"Improvement" ?

The article says: "Eugenics ... advocates the improvement of human hereditary qualities". That's maybe what it claims to advocate but it is arguable whether or not eugenic policies would actually "improve" the human genome. If we narrow down the diversity of the human genome then surely this would not be an improvement. Would it? Maybe we should put the words 'the improvement' in inverted commas?--Nicholas 6 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)

I don't think quotes are necessary. Eugenics does advocate improvement. Whether or not improvement results, that's something else. Narrowing down the diversity of the human genome would seem, in itself, to be dangerous but the human race has evidently been down to as few as 10,000 individuals more than once. Moreover, some species get by with startling low levels of diversity, never mind their population. Either way, some might argue that adequate diversity could be assured through eugenics and management of the genome. Wyss 6 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

An interesting question that, I believe, isn't explained much in the article, is what is considered an improvement for eugenicists. That notion has considerably changed with the times. Flammifer 7 July 2005 09:04 (UTC)

Eugenics does advocate improvement. Whether or not improvement results, that's something else. Are we still debating whether eugenics is a pseudoscience? This statement so nicely captures the problem. Ignoring the results of an experiment seems to be a hallmark of a pseudoscience or non-science. It is precisely why the Carnegie Institution stopped funding the Eugenics Record Office- they discovered that the results weren't being tracked and that no real science was being conducted. Also, Flammifer raises a good point - the lack of of a clear definition for "improvement" has stymied eugenics. One prominent eugenicist was an epileptic, which he regarded as a congenital disease. Author David Plotz has recently suggested that would-be parents really want a good-looking child rather than a brilliant one. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 09:20 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say eugenics is still a pseudo science, but only because past quacks, politicans and others have made such horrific, criminal mistakes, Hitler and the Nazis being the best modern industrial example but for all we know our ancestors deliberately exterminated the Neanderthals in Europe (Hitler wasn't the first to try extermination, either way). Given the potential for abuse, along with the historical "yuck" factor and the technical challenges of even describing the genome, we have yet to see eugenics applied as an emperical science. Can it be? I imagine so, as the science of genetics becomes more able to provide the necessary quantitative knowledge and tools, but the question will be open until it happens. Wyss 7 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)

(I think I could quickly find sources who would disagree with Plotz btw, asserting that parents are concerned with more than just esthetics or whatever) Wyss 7 July 2005 10:00 (UTC)

(Yes, that'd help prove the point-the uncertainty of what "improvement" means. Where does a Stephen Hawking or Samuel Johnson-type child fall in the improvement field? Do parents/society want sons who looks good in suits and can hold down executive positions or sons who drool and talk about abstract ideas? Where's the science in that equation? Hmmm. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 10:18 (UTC)

Heh heh. I dunno, how 'bout a fine lookin' daughter who can do as she pleases... differential analysis in her head, communicate with sparkling clarity or whatever, lead or follow as she chooses, then drool over a nice batch of biscuits she whipped up in the oven? I mean, why one or the other? We mustn't forget the nurture in nature- genes are the template, and there's much to learn, but our ability to build social systems is still wanting and will be just as important as giving children healthy and helpful (so to speak) genes. Wyss 7 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

The very first paragraph needs a sentence that starts "However critics argue that … " (or something along those lines). We get a good sense of what eugenicists want, but we are left to guess that there may be criticisms, until a couple of paragraphs later. I know that occasionally I just wanna read the introductory paragraph and i can't be bothered with the rest of wiki articles (occasionally). So i think that the introductory para is essential. We should contain, within that intro para, enough info as is possible, including a statement which sheds light on the controversy. The fact that eugenics is fiercely debated should be made clearer and it should be pointed out (right at the very beginning of the article) that there are several critiques of eugenics. So, immediately after the sentence that starts: “Advocates of the approach have said …” I think we should do a sentence that says “Critics of the approach …”.

Plus, I still believe that we should put “the improvement” in inverted commas. Why would narrowing down the gene pool result in an improvement? Can anyone tell me?--Nicholas 7 July 2005 09:45 (UTC)

The human gene pool may already be narrower than you think. Go back thirty generations and any two Europeans have a common ancestor (not to be confused with MRCA) and it usually only takes less than ten by the way... another thirty, forty or so and any two people anywhere likely do (through commercial and military contacts). This seems to be confirmed by the Human Genome Project, in that the more we learn, the less diversity we see in the genome. We're all cousins (to make a dramatic point). Wyss 7 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)

I'd also say that eugenics does not neceassarily mean narrowing down the gene pool. Eugenics means improving the gene pool, so ideally that would mean only taking out the really "disfunctional" genes, which probably count for only a fraction of the existing diversity. heck, maybe you could find some modern-day eugenicists who advocate *widening* the gene pool by importing genes from other plants and animals through genetic engineering ^-^ Flammifer 7 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

If an eugenics policies doesn't result in improvement, it doesn't mean eugenics failed - it means that that policy is probably a crappy policy as far as eugenics is concerned. Similarly, if a policy that's supposed to reduce unemployement actually doesn't do so, it doesn't mean that "trying to reduce unemployement" is a pseudoscience - it just means that was a crappy policy (as an additional but not particularly informative parallel, governments have also tried to redefine "unemployement" to have policies that look more successful ^-^).

Lots of people would argue that economics is still a pseudoscience (grin), but I do agree with your point. Wyss 7 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

I think the discourse can be decomposed in three steps : (A) "We should have policies to improve the human genome" {B) "Changing this aspect would result in improvement" (C) "Implementing this policy would change the aforementioned factor". Now, eugenics is mainly about phase (A) - the question of what is improvement is internal to eugenics, as is the question of whether a given policy really results in improvement. A lot of (B)-type proposals have probably been pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean eugenics as a whole is pseudoscience (Though in my mind it justifies the pseudoscience category). I'd rather say "non-science", the same as marxism :).

(Hmm, as an illustration of the problems "improvement" raises, what are considered defects ? Being deaf, yes. being black, no. How about dwarfism, or albinism ?) Flammifer 7 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Of course, one of the biggest problems has been experimentation. Kids aren't lab rats, fruit flies or pea pods etc. There's risk of launching a self-aware person into a less than happy life. However, if the parameters are truly quantitative, perhaps the risks can be brought down to less than what we have now. I wouldn't even venture into questions of skin colour or size... there may be practical reasons for our descendents to make surprising choices. Even choosing what syndromes to avoid would probably be controversial along the way. Wyss 7 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

RE: "what are considered defects ? Being deaf, yes".

Why is being deaf defective? That's a terrible word to use when giving recourse to the notion of disability! Shame on you. Disabled people can live good lives and who are you to decide what is defective. That's the thing with eugenics, what kind of a message does eugenics send to defective people? This world would be a much improved place without you! If only we had less deaf people in the world, this place would be cool! What nonsense.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 10:28 (UTC)

Exactly. Casting the choices in terms of defects (either semantically or otherwise) is the road to Auschwitz (not calling anyone here a Nazi, please). Hmmm, but wait, what if a gene combo is found that greatly increases the probability of producing a serial killer? Is that a defect? Or is it just, "the sociopathically impaired gene"? Anyway, it's crucial not to confuse an impairment like deafness or mental illness with the person inside. Wyss 7 July 2005 10:34 (UTC)

*rolls eyes* I was making a point about the difficulty deciding on what was considered defects, by showing that it wasn't clear cut, even if you accept the concept of "defect". Deaf people probably mostly would have prefered to be born with normal hearing. Black people don't generally claim they would have prefered to be born white. But dawrfism and albinism are bordeline. If you don't like deafness, replace it with haemophilia if you want (Or do you consider that we shouldn't call haemophilia a defect because it may hurt haemophiliacs feelings ?).

Though the "calling something a defect might hurt some people's feelings" (or, related, pointing out people like Stephen Hawking) argument definitely should be on the page among the "objections to eugenics") Flammifer 7 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)

We agree. Sometimes I draw dramatic examples to define discussions, it's not like I thought I was being instructive :) See below for my thoughts on the Stephen Hawking take. Wyss 7 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

So, the term "improvement" is essentially contestable in this context. I think we should put it in inverted commas. Also, i think we need an extra sentence, in the very first paragraph, that begins "Critics of the approach ...". I will start working on these suggestions within the next couple of hours, unless someone else wants to do it?--Nicholas 7 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)

I have tried purported in lieu of inverted commas, which for me can imply disdain in a controversial or sensitive subject. Yes, we need a "critics say" line. Let's work on that now? Wyss 7 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

I put it back to "improving" because eugenics *does* involve a value judgement. It's not about just changing, it's about improving. Flammifer 7 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)

The word -improving- is ok by me, but not italicised or quoted, the former being abstract, the latter implying disapproval. Wyss 7 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)

Why is getting rid of deaf people an improvement?--Nicholas 7 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

I know the question's not directed at me... but I read it as a trap. Only a criminal would advocate "getting rid of" a deaf person. The question might be better phrased as, "Why would ensuring that someone is born with healthy hearing be an improvement?" Wyss 7 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)

Come on, let's not have an edit war about this. Eugenics *is* about improving the human genetic pool. The question is as to whether such an improvement is ethical or possible, what it would consist of, and how to implement it. I could understand the commas on something like 'forced sterilization were implemented in order to "improve" the gene pool', or 'immigration was restricted to "improve" the gene pool', but I don't think it's meaningful to do that for genetics as a whole. that would be like saying 'this anti-unemployement policy aims at "reducing" unemployement'.

If it doesn't result in an improvement, it's not eugenics. We're talking about the *definition* here ! Flammifer 7 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flammifer here. For me, it's either improvement, purported improvement (to indicate that improvement is advocated but scientifically uncertain for the moment) or, last choice, change, just to avoid an edit spat or whatever. Wyss 7 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some confusion here about what eugenics is... it need not (and ethically should not) involve killing off potential parents with certain traits ("getting rid of deaf people" or whatever). The Nazi take on eugenics included genocide, but eugenics need not involve genocide any more than lawn mowing need involve the use of a gasoline powered lawn mower (hmmm, that's not the greatest analogy but at least it's clear). Wyss 7 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Yes but whether it is "voluntary" (the new genomics) or "involuntary" (the nazi party), both types of eugenics send out similar messages to disabled people. Eugenics tends to frame disabled people as being undesirable. The eugenic message says: "The world would be a much better place if only we had less disabled people". This reasoning can be applied to both Nazi 'logic' (if u could call it logic) as well as the new-eugenics (read genomics). Both imply that we should have less disabled people.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If the disabled are well-treated and cared for as human beings, how does the study of prevention of disability in future populations threaten the disabled or frame them as undesireable?

Sadly, this whole debate sounds somewhat biologically deterministic since many eugenicists argue that disability is a result of our genes, when in fact the vast majority (something like 80%) of disabled people are disabled because of accidents that occurred after they were born.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)

In either case, genetically based treatments are likely to emerge for most of these disabilities. Whether or not this work will be part of an eventual scientific discipline called eugenics, I don't know, but they'll likely call it something else. The word eugenics has been thoroughly poisoned by the unscientific and sociopathic abuses historically carried out under its banner. Wyss 7 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

Tom Shakespeare, the (disabled) sociologist, suggests that there is little difference between coercive eugenics and “voluntary” euginics. He states that: “The Human Genome Project has been hailed as the Holy Grail of future health. I would argue that it does not mark a radical departure from traditional approaches to the ‘disability problem’. While historical genetics operates at the level of populations, contemporary eugenics operates at the level of the individual and families. While the rhetoric speaks of improving health, the current reality is that detection and termination are the only option in most cases” (1995: 8-10).

The new eugenics (genomics) proscribes a set of genetic ideals for society, and sadly those ideals do not include disabled people – such genetic features are constructed as being undesirable. --Nicholas 7 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)

My main reply is below, but I strongly agree that any specific, "itemised" proscription of "ideals" to be expressed in a healthy genome is fraught with opportunities for abuse, misapprehension and plain bone-headedness. Wyss 7 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Does this imply that one desires disability (so to speak) in people, or that the disabled must be resigned to their suffering, that the only morally acceptable outcome is to adapt to the physical condition regardless of the suffering or limits it provokes, or the opportunities for treatment that may exist? How does studying the possibility of reducing disability in future populations harm a well-cared for disabled person? Is one saying that a criminal intervention in a disabled person's life is ineveitable? Isn't that deterministic?

Finally, if most disability is caused by environmental factors, then the disabled are mostly removed from relevance to the discussion (unless the mere word "eugenics" is so horrifying to the disabled as to be taboo... though I doubt they're so one-dimensional...). These are just talking points, but I'm sincerely curious about exploring them if you like. Wyss 7 July 2005 14:53 (UTC)

Concerns of the disabled

I do see your concern for the disabled. I'd say that any useful discussion along these lines must be qualified by the understanding that disabled people wouldn't be deprived of care (or worse). However, if disabled activists truly believe that any effort to improve the genome will ultimately result in separate, pre-emptive criminal behavior against the disabled, I'd respectfully propose that they either don't understand the discussion, or are so cynical as to the foibles and weaknesses of humanity that I don't see how a constructive dialog would be possible. Surely, they aren't as intractable as that? Wyss 7 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "criminal behaviour" this is about the social construction of people as undesirable.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Truth be told, both are issues, and they are intertwined. Wyss 7 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)

Note, the article now contains a passage describing these concerns and I think it's way helpful. Placing that content in the opening paragraph seemed deeply problematic to me, since that paragraph only functions to define the topic, and that definition already (now) mentions genocide as an historic outcome of past eugenic programs. Wyss 7 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Like most non-disabled people, some contributors to this discussion seem unable to imagine that life as a disabled person could be anything other than awful and tragic. This unfounded view is based on prejudice and not on reality. The construction of disability as undesirable risks creating a genetic underclass, which is no worse than racism.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. In my experience, most people have had some exposure to the disabled and know many of them have rich life experiences. Racism is always a risk when people are involved. Shouldn't we strive to avoid it? Wyss 7 July 2005 16:12 (UTC)

Dear Wyss, that wasn't intended to be a personal attack on you. However you did inquire whether or not disabled people should be "resigned to their suffering", which provoked me to utter the above statement. See the comments above regarding deaf people, also. I have over 5 years experience working with adults with learning difficulties and I can tell you categorically that most non-disabled people have a patronising/discriminatory attitude toward disability. The clients I worked with were continually treated with pity, or concern, even by my fellow colleagues at the time; like "oh what a shame s/he's in a wheelchair". I used to think "oh what a shame, you are very small minded".--Nicholas 7 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Was it intended as a personal attack on me then ? :)

I don't think disabilities are a key point here. You jumped on me because I used deafness as an example of "non-favorable trait", but it could have just as well been haemophilia. Eugenics is not "against" people with disabilities, it's against (among others) genetic diseases. Some, like deafness, cause disabilities, but some genetic disorders, like haemophilia are probably not considered disabilities (or is it ? I have no idea :P), and some disabilities (like most cases of blindness, for example) aren't hereditary, so eugenics has no concern for them.

What's more, well .. what's the point of accusing me of being insensitive ? Is it in any way relevant to the article ? The "Stephen hawking argument" definitely has it's place in the article, so let's rather focus on that side of things, ok ? Flammifer 7 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

The vast majority of deaf people don’t even consider themselves “disabled”. Rather they would consider themselves “linguistically challenged”; much in the same way as immigrants in a new community who cannot speak the native language.

RE: “the Stephen Hawking argument” … is this meant to be some kinda sick joke? Boiling the issue down to a glib phrase like that: "the stephen hawking argument". 'Insensitive' isn't the word i'd use in this context, 'ignorant' maybe, 'discriminatory' definitely yes.

Of course eugenics is about disability. Who else would be the subject of eugenic policies? :::Actually, I could think of one or two people.

Why don’t you read some of the literature in this area before you put your big foot in it once more? I’d start with Tom Shakespeare’s work.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

Nicholas, put your big foot in it once more is too close to a personal attack for me.

Correct, that was a personal attack. I can't believe some of the things that are being said here. Discrimination of disabled people takes place on an everyday basis and it has no place in this discussion. Imagine if someone was talking about ethnic minorities in similar manner. It's disgusting. Flammifer you should be ashamed of yourself.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

How has he expressed discrimination against the disabled? Wyss 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC) (Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

Both you guys seem to believe that this world would be an improved place without "disability". In other words, you are suggesting that "disabled lives" are not worth living. Why don't you go and speak to a deaf person, or a haemophiliac and ask them if their lives are worth living. Plus, there was that little jovial discussion that took place about Stephen Hawkings earlier on. Imagine if people joked in the same way about ethnic minorities. Imagine. You guys think that would be funny? --Nicholas 7 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

• I never even implied that a disabled person had a life "not worth living". Quite the contrary, actually, so I think it's unfair of you to assert that. I do think anyone with a life worth living might legitimately want to improve their life and their childrens', whether or not it involved any abstract discussion of an article on eugenics in Wikipedia, don't you? Wyss 7 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Wyss, you seem unable to imagine that life as a disabled person could be anything other than awful and tragic. All of your posts today have suggested this much. Why don't you read Tom Shakespeare's work or go speak to a disabled person.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

• Nicholas, I said the opposite. Plainly. Please reread my posts. Meanwhile, I take it you define eugenics intrinsically as an attack upon and probable genocide against the disabled? Wyss 7 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Yes, eugenics = genetic cleansing and the social construction of disabled people as undesirable. Wyss, amongst other things you have variously said: "I'm a bit surprised this has even come up … the living disabled aren't even relevant, other than ensuring their rights as people". And: "It's naive to think the average deaf quadriplegic wouldn't rather be walking and hear the birds chirp". As well as: "There's risk of launching a self-aware person into a less than happy life". And this little wise-cracking beauty: "Heh heh. I dunno, how 'bout a fine lookin' daughter who can do as she pleases... differential analysis in her head, communicate with sparkling clarity or whatever, lead or follow as she chooses, then drool over a nice batch of biscuits she whipped up in the oven?" Why is disability so funny? --Nicholas 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

• I wasn't laughing at disability, Nicholas. I was laughing at the baking project. That was really unfair of you to represent my post that way.

• Your definition of eugenics is unsupported by the literature, nor by my dictionary. However, flawed sociopathic interpretations of eugenics have certainly resulted in genetic cleansing (I interpret your use of this term to mean extermination) and the social construction of disabled people as undesirable.

• Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I have the impression you're here to advance a PoV that any technological intervention into the human genome must inevitably result in genocide of the disabled. Wyss 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Wyss, I never mentioned the words "extermination" or "genocide" - i used the word cleansing very purposively, like the term "ethnic cleansing" - eugenics is like "disabled cleansing" and it need not use force - as you well know. This is not just about "extermination". This is about constructing people. It's about framing people as undesirable. It's the message that is sent to disabled people - living disabled people, who are obviously affected by issues of eugenics(contrary to the utterances of you and flammifer). The message that is sent to disabled people, by eugenics, is thus: your life isn't worth living and we will try to prevent the likes of you from happening again.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

For example, can you think of any method, real or imaginary, that would be ethically acceptable to you, to prevent the birth of conjoined twins? Wyss 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

And to remind you of this one, you did inquire whether or not disabled people should be "resigned to their suffering".--Nicholas 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

Anyway, it is recognized that past eugenics programs have targeted the disabled and the article strongly expresses that. I think we can take it as a given that any discussion here assumes protecting the rights of disabled people. Wyss 7 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

Re linguistically challenged, the term more accurately reflects and describes a helpful coping mechanism and rationalization process than any fundamental difference in thought process or perception. It's naive to think the average deaf quadriplegic wouldn't rather be walking and hear the birds chirp, so to speak (given there are psychological minefields of possibility concerning the wants of people who have become adjusted to their lives). If such a person can be safely healed to walk and hear, and they have chosen it, I think that's helpful is all. Is that insensitive? Is that unethical? Wyss 7 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

How patronising could you be?--Nicholas 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

My questions are spot on sincere. Are you willing to answer them? Wyss 7 July 2005 21:41 (UTC)

Do you think it likely that in human genetics, it's an either/or thing, that extraordinary intellectual capability and behavior must be derived from physical disability? I ask because I don't think Hawking's disability relates overwhelmingly (somewhat, maybe) to the origins of his contributions to physics. In terms of any ethical discussion of eugenics, the living disabled aren't even relevant, other than ensuring their rights as people (which would include the availability of medical care and therapy). I'm a bit surprised this has even come up.

For me anyway, any discussion of the future of eugenics, both in scientific and ethical terms is strictly with the health of the unborn. Moreover, it appears that in theory an advanced biotechnology could make it possible for people disabled for genetic reasons to have healthy children of their own. Rhetorically speaking, would that be lacking in ethics? To be sure, cast this way, the definition would ultimately revolve around what healthy means.

First though, eugenics would have to make the leap from pseudo-science to science. I also think it likely that eugenics as a term is so linked with exterimation and genocide that a new word will be needed to describe the mature scientific study of these issues when it emerges. Wyss 7 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Regarding disability and deafness in particular - the first major eugenicist in the U.S. was Alexander Graham Bell, whose interest lay in ridding the world of deafness. So it's not a side issue by any means. Regarding the value of genetic characteristics, we should remember that genes do not necessarily do one single thing alone. A single gene or set of genes can have a number of effects. Supposedly an example of this is tomatoes. The same genes that give tomatoes green shoulders give them better flavor. However farmers, produce buyers, consumers, etc. have agreed that tomatoes are "improved" by being a uniform red, even if that means a loss of flavor. In another example, the genetic defect that causes sickle cell anemia may give greater protection against malaria. Our understanding, even today, of these linked effects is small. That's just one reason why the question of "improvement" is not genuinely scientific, and never was. -Willmcw July 7, 2005 21:31 (UTC)

Yep. Wyss 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Which is to say, the "improvement" problem is inherently one of POV -- it is a value judgment, and nothing gets stickier than making value judgments on genetic characteristics. Even from a strictly "biological" POV these are not straightforward questions (such as with sickle cell, which has its costs and benefits). --Fastfission 7 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Yes, and being qualitative value judgements, they are inherently unscientific, even if some people find them meed or helpful. Thus, so long as eugenics is defined as a study of hereditary "improvement", it remains a social philosophy centered on choice, not an observation-based, reductive field of study. Wyss 7 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of improvement is POV. But it's an issue that deserves coverage - an opinion not being NPOV doesn't mean it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia (or we wouldn't have articles on racism). Flammifer 8 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)

Clean up

I've cleaned up the syntax and flow of the whole article. The body of it was already quite helpful and complete, I've made zero content subtractions or additions. Wyss 7 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

A Question

This thread has gotten so convoluted, I've duplicated my latest question to Nicholas here. Any answer is ok, I'm truly benignly interested in your reply even if it's PoV or whatever, as someone who is trying to edit an encyclopedia article on eugenics.

Nicholas... for example, can you think of any method, real or imaginary, that would be ethically acceptable to you, to prevent the conception of conjoined twins? Wyss 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

I would prefer not to come to any grand conclusions on the matter, these things are never simple and each case should be judged on its own merits. You, however, seem pretty sure that the life of a conjoined twin should be prevented. Why is this? --Nicholas 7 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

You are not focusing on writing an encyclopedia article. Thanks. Wyss 7 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

You asked the question.--Nicholas 7 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

You didn't answer it. I was trying to understand your PoV so I could elaborate the disabled issue in the article. I think it ultimately relates down to whether or not eugenics could ever be called a science under its current definition. Sadly, you deliberately avoided replying with a clear answer, and ended your reply with some sort of a criticism of what you think is my attitude about conjoined twins. Anyway, I do gather you think it's more or less impossible to regard any scientific study of the human genome in terms of "improvement." I agree :) Wyss 8 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)

My main point is that eugenics frames disabled people in negative terms. Flammifer, in that last edit you used words like "cleaning the gene pool" from "defects" such as "deafness" ... did u actually read the conversation yesterday? I think wikipedia should be "cleaned" of your influence.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

I did. I'm not sure you noticed that I sincerely found your input exceedingly helpful and informative (although the emotional tone was a bit challenging to work past now and then ;). Your remarks have strongly informed and influenced my edits. Thanks! :) Wyss 8 July 2005 08:41 (UTC)

• However, please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Meanwhile, I think my tone of text writing on this talk page doesn't work too well for you, and I'm sorry about that. I suspect that if we met face to face you'd realize I do listen to you and am sympathetic to the basic core of what you say. I didn't appreciate the "wikipedia should be "cleaned" of your influence", but I realize that's a tit for tat response for earlier comments of mine which you mis-interpreted as slurs against the disabled. My big sister was born with a congenital heart defect, diagnosed at birth, and she mostly had a great time before she died suddenly as a result of it in her mid-twenties, even if she was exempted from almost every physical education class normlly required of her while she was in school. I still miss her terribly. Me? My health has always been wonderful but I know that one day, one way or another, I'll be disabled. Please don't confuse me with others you may have talked with in the past, nor my work on this article with my personal views, although I do understand how that could happen. Wyss 8 July 2005 08:55 (UTC)

The "I think wikipedia should be "cleaned" of your influence." was for me, I believe, and wasn't meant litterally. I had written some stuff in a way considered insensitive, and haden't answered to every objection made (mainly because they weren't very relevant to the article and because fighting is boring).

But yes, Nicholas, I did read all the conversation, but if you scroll up a bit you'll see there was a *lot* of discussion adding that bit, so I can't t hope to perfectly represent every perspective in the first draft. Plus, this is wikipedia, if you don't like the way something is written, you can offer another way of saying it, instead of attacking the writer. Flammifer 8 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

New section (again)

I added a new section about "what is /are eugenics", trying to summarize the various issues raised during dicussion here. I'm not satisfied with it but at least it's readable :)

I also took a bit out of the intro, since it was becoming redundant (and was integrated into the new section) - I think the intro should be a summary of the page, and shouldn't introduce too many concepts that aren't discussed in the article (in this case "positive" and "negative" eugenics).

I know the prose is not beautiful, but let's have some feedback first :) Flammifer 8 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Using your new section as a basis, I

• Cleaned up the prose
• Focused more strongly on improvement being a question of social policy and not science, which is probably the fundamental reason why eugenics is not a science.

Obviously discussion and feedback would be helpful :) Wyss 8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)

I won't dive in and make any significant changes now, this topic is under a bit of heat so there's no need of going too fast. I'll probably try and change it a bit later on. Maybe regrouping the bits on genetic disorders (they're a bit intermingled with scientific racism right now). I'd like to put back the fact that some hereditary disorders (like Tay-Sachs disease and Huntington's disease) are more clear-cut as """""defective""""" than others (albinism and dwarfism. Those disorders were originally put there to illustrate that point, there's no need to include *too* many examples of genetic disorders.

Anyway, I should stop looking at that page or I'll start making changes again. Better wait a bit more :) Flammifer 8 July 2005 08:49 (UTC)

(Big grin). I don't think any of these syndromes can be scientifically characterized as "defects" at this time. We still don't know enough about the human genome.

However, some of them can be characterized, as a matter of social policy, as "undesireable" (such as our ancestors have been doing since the neolithic). As Nicholas has pointed out in his distractingly accusatory and shrill manner, once we begin "framing" certain groups as "undesireable", we risk sliding down the slippery slope of something that he has equated with racism. While I don't agree with his analogies, the heart of his objections happen to point to the reasons why eugenics (as defined by its founders) can never be an objective science. I's say it has a role, one way or another, in the formulation of social policy and private decisions, and while there are plausible benefits there are also historically demonstrated risks. Happily, the article is on its way to reflecting that. Wyss 8 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)

I agree that qualifying something as "defective" or "undesirable" is more a matter of social policy than science, and is quite subjective. I don't think we should "frame" some groups as "undesirable" in the article, but rather say that *even* if one tries to frame some groups as undesirable, then we're still left with the quite difficult problem of deciding what is undesirable, and there are a lot of areas of grey there (I chose dwarfism and albinism because they seem to be right into the gray area).

Doesn't the article already reflect that, by saying any definition of improvement isn't scientifically rigorous? Wyss 8 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

So that would be one argument against such a "framing", the other being that calling something "undesirable" is *in itself* bad - a position that should be mentioned too. I think that's what Nicholas is mostly talking about. I personally believe that the "it's bloody difficult to tell a disability from an anomaly" argument is stronger, but they both have their place in the article. Flammifer 8 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

I'd change "bloody difficult" to "impossible" for now, although as a question of social policy, approximations have been attempted through a process variously known as eugenics. Since the decisions are invariably subjective and not reductive, mistakes are inevitable ("er, wait... what is a defect, anyway?"). I suspect eugenics, one way or another, is here to stay. The question (as I interpret it) isn't defining the defects, but stressing that eugenics is an engine of social policy and/or decision with both tangible potential benefits and historically documented (sometimes rather horrific) risks. One thing it's not, is a science... for me that's an important thing to communicate in the article. Wyss 8 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe you could say something on the lines of : Eugenics used to judge humans as a whole, marking certain aspects as "defective" Now, genetic disorders are generally treated on a case-to-case basis (as that Israeli group Yom-something, or that thingy in crete) - there's a campaign against some disorders and not others, not because some comittee decided that some genetic traits were "defective" (as tended to be the approach of the good ol' centralized state-controlled positivist eugenics movement), but rather because the people affected with some diseases (and their families, etc.) thought it worth it to mount a campaign to get rid of it, and people with other disorders (albinism) don't consider it worth it.

But that's just speculation, I have no direct knowledge about those things, I don't want to wander too far into original research. I'll have to do a bit of homework then :) But this *may* be a way of explaining the present situation when it comes to genetic disorders - some of them are being fought, yes, but not due to any centralized policy. Flammifer 8 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)

Truth be told... I think the article already says all that but I'll definitely re-read it later and see what might be clarifiable...? What's really twisted about human genetics is that some "carriers" of these syndromes might be the only means through which other "desireable" characteristics are being transmitted (statistically) to later generations. If it's possible to isolate all the cause and effect (and I imagine it will be one day), it'll be done by the science of genetics, with any reactive social policy being implemented through a program of eugenics or (as likely) some other social system. Wyss 8 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

If you want to find out about the (alleged) differences between "coercive eugenics" and the new-eugenics (genomics), then i think you should read Tom Shakespeare's work. Here is his home page [14]. He also writes about disability activism, more generally. This book, in particular, is very good: Genetic Politics: from Eugenics to Genome (2002). --Nicholas 8 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Objectification

For what it's worth I like objectifies hereditary traits Wyss 01:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wrote in my edit summary: "Objectifies human hereditary traits" subsumes the negative objectification of hereditary disability.

Nicholas responded: "objectifies human ..." doesn't capture the thrust of the criticism nor the way that it relates to disabled people - since not all disabilities are hereditry."

1. As far as I know, eugenics only deals with (supposed) hereditary traits. If that's true, the criticism probably needs to be confined to hereditary disability (the actual stance held by eugenics), not other forms of disability.

2. I think we agree that the criticism regarding disability being negatively framed is within the larger category of objectification of hereditary traits. There are other equal criticisms within that category, such as that traits like genetic diseases or low intelligence are framed as undesireable, as well as that other traits are framed as being more desireable, which is also criticized. The reverted version of the header appears to be emphasizing the disability criticism at the expense of other equal criticisms, and in an intro summary, it seems to be sufficient to only cover the larger category (objectification of hereditary traits) that encompasses these sub-topics. --Nectar ^T 08:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Historically, eugenic policies have been used against disabled people and non-disabled people alike, as well as ethnic minorities, working class men and women, etc, the list could go on and it is not exclusive to (supposed) hereditary traits. Nowadays, however, with the 'new eugenics'/genomics - negative eugenic policies are targeted at the (supposed) "undesirable" hereditary traits. But no matter who the policies are targeted at the (rather crude) message remains the same "we'd be better without disabled people around here - they should be pitied - if only everyone was tall, strong and able bodied!".--Nicholas 09:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not being silly but could you clarify what is meant by objectification in this context?--Nicholas 09:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

1. Dictionaries, as well as this article, define eugenics as dealing with hereditary traits. That does, though, seems like a fair point to say that eugenic attitudes have the effect of negatively valuing even non-hereditary disability.

2. Putting the objectification statement in other words, the argument appears to be that eugenic attitudes assign objective value to different traits that otherwise might be thought of in subjectively valued terms. The possession of 'x' trait signifies one thing to one person and another thing to another person, but eugenic attitudes articulate an external value system and hierarchy. Disability, height, etc, are treated as having absolute valuation, rather than subjective or relative valuation to different people.--Nectar ^T 10:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The objectification of a disabled person's traits would involve assigning a value to them, which could be either positive or negative. The description is more neutral and scientific. Wyss 14:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not very sure of what "objectifies hereditary traits" means. But on the other hand, since I was never very sure of what "constructs disability in a negative manner" meant anyway, I guess I have no strong leaning either way. (I vaguely object to "constructs disability .." because it somehow seems to imply that before eugenics, nobody thought that disability could be something we didn't want) Flammifer 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Another way to interpret the term objectification is to imagine how people can evaluate others based on isolated characteristics, rather than the whole person's behavior and interactions with society. Simple examples might include accepting, employing or being interested in someone, in whatever context, mostly because of her breast size or his height, or socially compartmentalizing or otherwise singling someone out in broad social terms only because he was blind or three-limbed, learning-challenged or clinically depressed. Wyss 16:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone now oppose moving the 'frames disability as less desirable' point from the header to the criticism section? The argument is that it is a sub-topic of the point that follows it (that eugenics objectifies human hereditary traits). The sentence is now a bit long for a header summary. If some readers don't fully understand the concise objectification statement in the header, they'll be able to refer to the (new) criticism section, which elaborates on it.--Nectar ^T 08:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples often cited

(examples cited often include Stephen Hawking and Samuel Johnson)

What the heck? Please show a source for this. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 10:38 (UTC)

I think Flammifer introduced those names in order to be illustrative... since I hesitated at them a bit when I was editing that part, I think I'd like to remove them until a source can be offered. Wyss 8 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)

It's difficult trying to write an encyclopeadia article when stuff like that crops up! It's sheer ignorance, really.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

I don't think it was ignorance. Lots of this has to do with differences in perception and definitions of terms. Please assume good faith...! Wyss 8 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

The original phrasing was Some have argued that some great people succeeded in spite of disabilities, like Stephen Hawking or Samuel Johnson, and I used those two names as examples because they had been used on this page (Where does a Stephen Hawking or Samuel Johnson-type child fall in the improvement field?), though I had heard Stephen Hawking mentioned before on that topic. I believe that he offers a pretty good example of why we shouldn't be too brash about whatr we consider as unfit. I don't think the Stephen Hawking example mostly stands up by itself, though a google search shows it's not the first time that name crops up in the eugenics debate. Flammifer 8 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

Okay Flammifer. "succeeded in spite of their disability" ... how patronising and discriminatory! Imagine that you had said this: Some have argued that some great people succeeded in spite of blackness, like Denzel Washington or Samuel Jackson. Then you will realise how ridiculous your statement was! It's pretty much the same thing. Ignorance.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 12:09 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the current discussion. We're wondering whether it's OK to point to Stephen Hawking as an oft-cited example. Flammifer 8 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

No. It's patronising and discriminatory. The above comments, regarding ethnicity, are very relevant to the discussion. This is about the discrimination of disabled people, which you seem unable to comprehend. Indeed, you seem intent on discriminating against people. It's a wonder that you have "succeeded" in contributing to WIkipedia in spite of your ignorance. I am not gonna tell you again ... but why don't you go read Tom Shakespeare's book.--Nicholas 8 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with Nicholas' shrill and demeaning tone (which I find especially odd coming from someone who professes sensitivity to other people, such as the disabled). Nicholas, I've asked you several times to refrain from personal attacks. Characterizing an editor's contributions as "ignorance", accusing him of discrimination and so on are uncalled for, unhelpful and against Wikipedia policy. Please stop that.

Nonetheless, after cutting through all the vitrol, anger and abuse, I agree with him that mentioning Hawking or anyone else as "poster-people" for a notion of "disabled people who have suceeded" does not conform with current scholarship and practice concerning the disabled. I do realize, however, that you've had something quite positive in mind. Wyss 8 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

If someone was being racist would you be as polite as that?--Nicholas 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

I challenge you to test me on that one, Nicholas... uhm, wait... you already have! :) I think he has expressed a non-racist PoV about this topic is all, but you'd have to ask him for confirmation. Wyss 8 July 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I expressed my POV on eugenics pretty clearly further up, following the example of Fastfission. I think Nicholas has a problem with the way I talked about disable people a couple of times, but that's off topic and I'm not very interested in pursuing the subject - at least, not here.

About Hawking : I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with referencing Hawking in this context, though I don't particularly insist on it either. I don't think that's what Nicholas is objecting to, though (If it is - Nicholas, I wish you could be a bit more explicit and to the point). A good example can be pretty illustrative and informative, more so than generalities about how "people can succeed with disabilities" - and Stephen Hawking is a very successful and brilliant person with a quite impairing handicap. I don't think you can find a much stronger example than that. Flammifer 8 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

RE: "Nicholas, I wish you could be a bit more explicit and to the point". What do you want from me now? I have told you exactly what the problem is, on numerous occasions. It's getting silly now. If you don't think you've done any wrong ... then good ... i'm sure you'll sleep soundly this evening. Let me just say this: discrimination against disabled people should not be treated lightly. Some of the things that you have said in this discussion are truly beyond belief, i challenge you to talk in that blasé fashion on the racism or sexism pages. I can assure you it won't go down well. If you’re still not sure that you’ve done anything wrong I can cut-and-paste all your heinous comments here, in a nice neat order for all to see? Would that be “explicit and to the point” enough for you? --Nicholas 8 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

What I said was I don't think that's what Nicholas is objecting to, though (If it is - Nicholas, I wish you could be a bit more explicit and to the point) - meaning that I didn't think that you were specifically refering to using Hawking as a poster boy (which is what Wyss was talking about), but to something more general and not particularly relevant to how we should modify the article. And I was saying that if you were indeed objecting to using Hawking as an illustration, you could have made that point a bit more clearly, reading what you wrote I could swear you were criticizing me on a sentence in the article that had already been rewritten by somebody else at the time. I was most certainly not asking you to attack me and try to show me where I did wrong, god knows I had enough of that already.

I just realized that language may be an issue - while I generally consider that my english is correct, maybe some terms don't have the exact conotations that I think they do, I haven't been living in an english-speaking country for quite some time now. That may have contributed to the non-issue. Flammifer 8 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Okay, i'll cut-and-paste this:

You said:

"We're wondering whether it's OK to point to Stephen Hawking as an oft-cited example". Flammifer 8 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

I said:

"No. It's patronising and discriminatory".--Nicholas 8 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. However, at that point, the discussion was mainly turning around whether those were really often-cited names, or if I had just pulled them out of my hat (as I indeed had ^-^). Flammifer 8 July 2005 16:30 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked! ;) Wyss 8 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)

Sources

I raised the point because Wikipedia talk pages are not adequate sources. Editors should have a range of sources at hand, either printed or Internet. This article has been extensively re-written in the last coupe of days without references being cited and now I don't trust those edits so much. Maybe we should revert back to where we were last week and start all over again, with sources. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 20:52 (UTC)

I was referring only to the "poster-boy" names, never mind trying to lighten up the tone around here :) For my edits, I used the talk pages only for PoV control and balance along with scoping out the concerns of the other editors I found in this space. Anyway, have a look at

http://cfi.hanover.edu/symp/w99/foreugenics.htm ... here are some excerpts...

If we examine the logical basis of eugenics, we will discover that its "perfect logic" was internal, based upon unchallenged assumptions shared by its largely professional, middle-class proponents. These assumptions were essentially three:

Human beings were simply the sum of a number of potentially measurable abilities and traits, and society was nothing more than the sum of those individuals.

Certain values and behaviors, associated with their own middle-class, professional culture, were both universally desirable and biologically determined, while other values and behaviors, often associated with the working classes and immigrants, were both universally undesirable and biologically determined.

...

The universal desirability or undesirability of certain values and behaviors is a matter for serious and thoughtful debate, not a self-evident fact. Even if human thought and behavior can be reduced to the "biological," such a reduction will require a definition of "biological" much more complex than simple genetic inheritance.

This is the sort of widely-sourced thought I worked into the new content, and plainly describes the documented process whereby eugenics was found to be a social philosphy sometimes abused as a pseudo-science, and not a reductive emperical study ("true" science). Wyss 8 July 2005 21:21 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few things in the new edits that don't necessarily require sources :

• Trying to clarify definitions ("eugencis as a scientific disciplin" vs. "eugenics as improvement of the human gene pool") that were giving rise to disagreements

• Reorganizing content - a few bits were taken from the introductory section, the list of eugenic policies is a bit of a summary of things dispersed on the rest of the page.

So I don't think the "What is eugenics" section as a whole requires sources, though I *do* agree that some parts could do with some justification, such as Following the Second World War it was realized that defining certain human conditions such as haemophilia, deafness, dwarfism or albinism as "genetic defects" was a matter of social policy and not scientific observation (for example, what looks like a defect in one context may not be so in another). Flammifer 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

I added a bit on positive and negative abortions. A source for the "abortion was illegal for aryan women" is http://vicu.utoronto.ca/courses/semiotics/SIGN_Gender_Persecution.htm (d'you think it needs to be added at the bottom of the article ?). I had something on Laughton's interest in selective breeding when I wrote that part, but can't find the source again. However, I don't think it's a contested claim. Flammifer 9 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Sources, fact-checking and various comments

I'm looking through the article listing things that could take fact-checking, or that need sources. Feel free to add. (Note that some of these things may already be adequatly covered in the references section) Flammifer 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

• racial hygiene as a means of eugenics
• (constructing disability in negative terms)
• (academic disciplin at many colleges and universities)
• As a cultural means of perceived improvement, some forms of infanticide in ancient societies along with present-day reprogenetics, pre-emptive abortions and designer babies are forms of eugenics. - doesn't seem NPOV. a weasely phrase may be better ? Or "eugenics is also used to described ..." but that would need some sources.
• one can still find advocates of liberal eugenics as a social policy - seems to me there's one book on liberal eugenics and that's about it.
• some ethicists question whether even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical. sources ?
• Eugenicists advocate specific policies which would lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. (I'm still not happy with "perceived improvement" ^-^
• The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of improvement of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. - a source would be nice
• Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors which often correlated strongly with social class. - reference to Galton and his ilk, though I'm not sure about the "mostly"
• Harry H. Laughlin took inspiration from the selective breeding again, the selective breeding as inspiration aspect "may" be called original research.
• Following the Second World War it was realized that defining certain human conditions such as haemophilia, deafness, dwarfism or albinism as "genetic defects" was a matter of social policy and not scientific observation

In the pursuit of good health, we have begun to tread a fine line in “human selection.” We often choose to rule out certain diseases or, more accurately, certain human beings with those diseases. In some cases, as with Tay-Sachs disease, an as of now invariably fatal illness in early childhood, such a decision may be motivated by compassion. From many viewpoints, there is little quality of life in any sense traditionally understood, and great anguish and tragedy.

Other diseases, however, challenge our logic more severely; our sense of balance between cost and benefit is not clear. Huntington’s chorea is a case in point. Would a Woodie Guthrie be born today? Would his parents, as carriers of the disease, bear a child with the known risk? Could we now or soon screen him out prenatally? If the pace of genetic intervention continues, such an individual would not be born. Yet, I for one, am glad that he lived, although I mourn the anguish of his later life. One wonders, too, whether some perception of his coming illness contributed to the extraordinary creativity of his life.

Clearly, it is a just and meaningful desire to prevent fatal and debilitating diseases. Yet in pursuing this goal, we pay unobserved costs. In eliminating individuals with unwanted diseases, we also create a mind-set that justifies the process of human selection. We thus move into the questionable arena of human worth, and to some degree eugenic thought. We forgo the idea of therapeutic change (i.e., dietary change or other forms of treatment) and opt instead for elimination. Individuals are seen as flawed. It is easier and more desirable to prevent their existence than to work for their survival. (Marque-Louisa Miringoff,The Social Costs of Genetic Welfare, Rutgers University Press, 1991: 159-160).

Any ideas on how to integrate that ? (found on the web, here : [15] among others)

• Unscientific eugenic policies may also lead to loss of genetic diversity, in which case a culturally accepted improvement of the gene pool may in fact be a biological disaster. - a reference would be nice. (I particularly question the term "unscientific")
• It has been argued that this "non-coercive" form of biological "improvement" will be predominately motivated by individual competitiveness and the desire to create "the best opportunities" for children, rather than an urge to improve the species as a whole, which characterized the early twentieth century forms of eugenics - the source is probably mostly Lee M. Silver (or at least, that would be the easiest one to associate the quote to), but maybe it could be phrased a bit better.
• Because of this apparently non-coercive nature "apparently" ? Doesn't seem like a very NPOV phrasing, though a word could be added about social pressures and the like.
• Disabled activists argue that although their impairments may cause them pain or discomfort, what really disables them as members of society is a socio-cultural system which does not recognise their right to genuinely equal treatment. They express skepticism that any form of eugenics could be to the benefit of the disabled since historic forms of eugenics have often not even recognised their right to existence. - There's that book in the references, but it could be phrased in a more direct way (giving names, etc.). Plus, I'm not sure a "form of eugenics" can do such a thing as recognize someone's "right to existence", that part could take some rephrasing.

Hmm, that should do for now :) Maybe some of those things don't have much to do with sources and references, I was just taking notes as I read (Yeah, I've been reading WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:RS recently :) ) Flammifer 9 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)

I don't see a sourcing problem with this article (although I'm open to criticisms). I think it's neutral enough but that needs to be watched... it could probably use some completeness tweaks. Wyss 9 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)

mm, I made a few edits that were reverted. Here's what I was trying to do :

• Clarify the issues around the meaning of "eugenics" : "As a cultural means of perceived improvement, some forms of infanticide in ancient societies along with present-day reprogenetics, pre-emptive abortions and designer babies are forms of eugenics" just doesn't seem very meaningful to me. So, I tried to rephrase it :"It is sometimes more broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool : some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, pre-emptive abortions and designer babies have been (controversially) qualified as eugenics." - the point is that these things did not or do not call themselves eugenicsm, but have been described as such. They are something seperate from the historical eugenics movement, even though some of the underlying ideas may be the same. SO putting in a word about how they have been qualified as eugenics makes sense.
• I've also tried to seperate the bits on genetic diseases and the bits on racism - treating them seperately makes more sense, no ?

So, why was everything reverted ?

I can understand that the Whatever criterion (social, personal, scientific) of choice one uses, there will be "borderline" cases that may or may not be considered genetic disorders, such as maybe dwarfism or albinism part poses problem, but isn't there a way of rephrasing that ?

Flammifer 04:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The current scholarly take on "defects" or "undesireable" traits is that they cannot be defined scientifically. So far, all such decisions have been found to be social or cultural choices. I know this sounds strange in the case of extreme conditions, but any notion of "improvement" is defined subjectively... relative to perceived needs and goals. Given this dispassionate view, there are no "borderline" cases. Indeed, we all do have "defects" and sorting out what's "improvement" and what's not is controversial and riddled with dilemma. Some of this may be resolved as we learn more about genetics and the human genome, some is likely to be controversial for a long time to come since the choices, in scientific terms, will always be subjective.

To put this in perspective, some will argue that making these subjective decisions is ethical. Others will assert that it cannot be, perhaps because we don't know enough about the genetic consequences, or that making such choices will inevitably marginalize certain groups. I have a personal opinion on this but won't express it here. What is clear, is many pre-war eugenicists neglected to realize their goals were based on subjective, cultural choices, not scientific ones and as a result in many cases one can deconstruct their work to show it was ultimately unscientific. The extreme example, obviously, is the Nazi "Final Solution", which purported to "purify" an "aryan race" (which itself was not correctly identified in anthropological terms) through "scientific principles" which were in truth the esthetic and social choices of political radicals (never mind the moral issues, sociopathy and the like). Wyss 11:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree - those decisions are subjective, and that's what I was trying to express in the article by Whatever criterion (social, personal, scientific) of choice one uses, there will be "borderline" cases that may or may not be considered genetic disorders, such as maybe dwarfism or albinism. Maybe rewriting that as Whatever subjective criterion of choice ... ?

I don't see why the fact that the decision is subjective / cultural means that we can't mention other aspects of the decision, such as that it's never clear-cut. Flammifer 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I put back the deleted bits, except the bit on dwarfism and albinism (And kept some of the rephrasing). I still prefer "Eugenic policies may lead to loss of genetic diversity" to "Unscientific eugenic policies may ..." since I'm pretty wary of qualifying some forms of eugenics as scientific and others as not. I think "extreme" may be a better word. Flammifer 04:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing:

• racial hygiene as a means of eugenics
  • Proctor, Racial Hygiene
• (constructing disability in negative terms)
  • Seems pretty self-evident to me
• (academic disciplin at many colleges and universities)
  • Selden, Inheriting Shame
• As a cultural means of perceived improvement, some forms of infanticide in ancient societies along with present-day reprogenetics, pre-emptive abortions and designer babies are forms of eugenics. - doesn't seem NPOV. a weasely phrase may be better ? Or "eugenics is also used to described ..." but that would need some sources.
  • I don't agree with that phrase at all; it is an attempt to apply a category transhistorically and also applying it to things which are debated (i.e. are designer babies eugenics -- they are individual rather than society/population based notions, not necessarily the same thing. Whether it is or not is still a wide debate in bioethics lit.)
• one can still find advocates of liberal eugenics as a social policy - seems to me there's one book on liberal eugenics and that's about it.
  • I don't think there are many advocates of this; I wouldn't overemphasize it being common or popular except on the internet.
• some ethicists question whether even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethical. sources ?
  • One specific example: A. Buchanan et al., "Why Not the Best?", Ch. 5, in From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 156-203.
• Eugenicists advocate specific policies which would lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. (I'm still not happy with "perceived improvement" ^-^
  • Well, the "perceived" is just trying to qualify "improvement" as being subjective. Putting it in quotes might suffice.
• The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of improvement of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. - a source would be nice
  • I'm not sure that's been the most disputed aspect; there are many disputes (methodology, definitions, ethics, practicality, etc.)
• Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with perceived intelligence factors which often correlated strongly with social class. - reference to Galton and his ilk, though I'm not sure about the "mostly"
  • Could ref this to Mackenzie, Statistics in Britain
• Harry H. Laughlin took inspiration from the selective breeding again, the selective breeding as inspiration aspect "may" be called original research.
  • Mmm, I think this is in Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics, but I'm not sure. Laughlin was a chicken breeder if I recall. In any event, if he was inspired by this, he wouldn't have been the first -- lots of people from Galton on were "inspired" to apply artificial selection to humans as breeders did to livestock.
• Following the Second World War it was realized that defining certain human conditions such as haemophilia, deafness, dwarfism or albinism as "genetic defects" was a matter of social policy and not scientific observation
  • I'm not sure this really immediately follows WWII; I don't have a direct source to this change of thought, though it is certainly in place by the 1960s.

Hope that helps a little. --Fastfission 20:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) I don't have access to many of those sources but it makes it easier to tell what needs work. Flammifer 06:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Modern advocates

I added a bit on modern advocates, to distinguish between those that "proudly" claim to be eugeniticists, and those who can be "accused" of eugenics. I haven't done that much research on them yet, but looking at those pro-eugenics websites I can see that it's a part not much covered in this article either. A bit of historical perspective on them could be useful, the cosmotheist stuff seems to "inherit" from some nazi stuff, but a lot of transhumanist stuff is more related to californian liberterianism, which seems pretty far from nazism or from those "state controlled" eugenic policies.

So maybe it's possible to split them in seperate subgroups, but that'd probably be original research. I don't know if it's possible to split them in groups or not. Flammifer 09:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to have a section on this topic then we should include more info. It should definitely give an assessment of the transhumanists. They are, as far as I can tell, just DnaGod and a few friends writing Internet rants. Then there's the James Hart who ran for Congress from Tennessee on a eugenics platform, although I'm not sure he'd ever really studied the topic carefully. The continuing eugenic efforts of the Pioneer Fund should be covered. Plus the new scholarship on the "old eugenics". Just some thoughts, -Willmcw 10:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure net rants should be cited unless a clear effect on public or academic thought can be noted (for example if the rant is mentioned on dozens of other web sites or in print). That too, is just a thought though. Wyss 12:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, didn't know much about dnagod, looks like he's a bit creepy ^-^ However, transhumanism goes beyond just him and a few friends - though maybe prometheism doesn't; I'm not sure if "prometheism" or "cosmotheism" need extensive coverage, I never heard of them before.

However, even if the prometheism things are but a few internet rants, they are probably relevant enough for us not to be able to write something like "modern advocates of eugenics reject the racist interpretation of eugenics caracteristic of the first half of the XXth century".

I've read a bit of transhumanist stuff before (I find their ideas pretty interesting, heck, I *am* a geek ^-^), but haden't seen them linked to (pseudo-)white supremacists before. Flammifer 04:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading the transhumanism talk pages, hmm, the issue's a bit thorny ... this will require more research later on. It seems that acceptance of humanism is part of the difference between various definitions of transhumanism. Something on the links between humanism and eugenics could be useful. I'll also have to look up a bit more on the "non-fringe" transhuman groups' vision of eugenics (Seems to be reprogenetics). Flammifer 05:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Purported hereditary improvements

• "Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the purported improvement of human hereditary qualities."

Eugenics advocates that hereditary qualities should be improved. Whether such has been accomplished or is capable of being accomplished is the debatable issue. --Nectarflowed ^T 07:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

We had a discussion about that a little while ago, including a minor edit war. I agree that "purpoted" is not necessary here. Flammifer 07:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Why would narrowing down the human gene pool result in improvement? "Improvement" in this context is a subjective term and open to conflicting interpretations. Eugenics policies may argue in favour of "improvement" but would "improvement" be the actual result? I think the term "purported" serves a useful purpose in this context.--Nicholas 09:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Why would narrowing down the human gene pool result in improvement?" - is anybody here saying that it would ? The point is that if it doesn't result in improvement, then eugeniticists will not be in favour of it. Eugeniticists are not favouring one kind of improvement of the gene pool over another - so no "purported" is needed, it only makes the sentence confusing. NPOV on Wikipedia is a more delicate process than inserting "alleged", "purported" and "so-called" at random places in articles. Flammifer 10:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

To take a more concrete example, what would you think of the sentence "The purpose of art is to make pretty pictures" - do you think it would be improved by "... to make purportedly pretty pictures" ? Agreed, we can argue that the definition of what is pretty can change from artist to artist, or that "prettyness" is devoid of meaning, and entirely the product of cultural conditioning. But does that justify writing "The purpose of art is to make purportedly pretty pictures" ? Flammifer 10:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Your example isn't comparable. It's not even clear that art has such a purpose. I'll rephrase my initial question: why would designer babies result in an "improvement" of the population? Why would the abortion of disabled foetus’s result in an "improvement"? Why would the framing of disability as undesirable result in “improvement”? That's the thing. They might claim to advocate "improvement" but it is arguable whether or not "improvement" would be the actual result.

By the way, it wasn’t me who initially suggested the insertion of the word “purported”, it was actually someone else. So, there’s no need to patronise anyone by suggesting that "NPOV on Wikipedia is a more delicate process than inserting "alleged", "purported" and "so-called" at random places in articles". --Nicholas 11:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Eugenicists are in favor of improving the gene pool. If designer babies don't improve the gene pool, then they don't interest eugenicists. Same for selective abortion. Asking why would designer babies result in an "improvement" of the population ? is roughly the same as asking why would designer babies be a good eugenics policy ?. Yes, they clame to advocate improvement, and yes, improvement may not be the result, but that's not because they have some other goals - if improvement doesn't result, they were wrong, they failed.

(And yeah, I was a bit patronizing, sorry)

Basically, I'd agree with "because it would supposedly result in improvement of the gene pool" when talking about specific eugenic policies. That would make sense. Interracial marriage was banned in the US because supposedly it degraded the gene pool. Same for other policies. But this page is about eugenics, and those policies should only be considered from the point of view of eugenics. That kind of stuff would fit much better on the compulsory sterilization page, for example. Or miscegenation, etc. Among the various reasons why such policies have been enforced : eugenics.

But on the eugenics article itself, it just doesn't make sense. Flammifer 11:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The pith of it is, current scholarship has reached a consensus that any definition or description of what comprises an improvement, even as it may concern congenital medical conditions, cannot be determined scientifically. This is partly because the genome (and biology) are so complicated as to cause, effect and interaction, also perhaps because genetics as a science is still not mature in its ability to describe the action of DNA. Thus in principle, the science of genetics can (apparently) be used to identify techniques for pre-determining the characteristics of babies, but deciding what those characteristics will be shall always be a social choice. Therefore eugenics is not a science, but a field of social study which if mistakenly applied as a science, is aptly called a pseudoscience.

Note that the above doesn't imply any value or ethical judgements, it only defines the terms as they're generally accepted at the moment. The unscientific side (and any discussion of ethics) comes into play when someone (a potential parent, a government, an insurance company) actually starts deciding what an improvement is. Hence the use of the word "purported", which is ok but does imply a negative spin. Some observers think the spin should be negative, always, others think it's likely going to be ethically acceptable to make some subjective decisions (or actuarial ones) about genetically influencing the characteristics of babies. This latter process would be eugenics, but the term has become so tainted by 20th century abuses that IMO someone may come up with a new word for it. Wyss 17:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If there's a problem defining what improement is exactly, than that means there's a problem defining what an eugenic policy should aim for. I think putting that kind of things in the definition of eugenics only make things confusing. There should be a difference between the definition and the problems / limitations. Flammifer 01:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

So, how do we resolve this issue? We appear to agree that there is some tension around the term "improvement", on a number of levels. How can we make the introductory definition reflect this tension?--Nicholas 21:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Leave it alone?

Put the term "improvement" in "inverted commas"?

Include the term (purported) but put it in (brackets)?

Or some other alternative?--Nicholas 21:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I would say perceived improvements. Wyss 21:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There, I've tried it but no adjective at all is also ok by me. Wyss 21:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I still prefer no adjective. Eugenicists didn't go around saying "Our gene pool is in need of perceived improvement !". Flammifer 01:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. I'll be rash and remove it, we can always put it back. Wyss 01:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it matters too much since the article itself very quickly goes into the subjectiveness of the word improvement. Anyway, alleged and perceived and purported aren't quite right, either. What we want is something like "what they saw as" which doesn't quite work in the sentence structure as it stands. I'm a fan of putting terms worth not taking for granted in quotes but I'm aware that some people find that a bit tiring. Just my two cents. --Fastfission 15:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

My personal take when I see a "word" in quotes is rather mild, but I'm aware that many people "interpret" them as a negative indictment, thus my hesitance to "use" them as a qualifier (I've run across this issue in other WP "articles" too). Wyss 21:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

grammar mistake

After over 7000 edits this is a first for me... a dispute over a simple grammar error.

• ...and some groups have be subjected to racial hygiene and even extermination.

should read,

• ...and some groups have been subjected to racial hygiene and even extermination.

Anyway if you can't pay attention to (or can't see, with two edit opportunities) a simple mistake in the conjugation of to be, I don't think I have much confidence in your previous opinion that the comma usage obscured the passage's meaning. I don't mean to be hard, but I'm rather keen on stuff like grammar and clear syntax. Wyss 00:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

By the bye, your edit summary,

• uh, if you don't understand the sentence, please go to talk and I'll explain it.

...was not helpful and borders on a personal attack. It made me smile, so it's ok, but please try to be more civil, the feelings you spare may be your own. Thanks :) Wyss 00:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I don't care how you want to parse the grammar, your changes have radically changed the meaning of the sentence. The sentence is an enumeration of eugenic methods: genetic engineering, selective breeding, birth control, etc. Among these are that some groups have been subjected to racial hygiene and extermination. Instead you have changed this to: "Some groups have included racial hygiene and even extermination." This is a line which makes no sense the way you have phrased it, and disconnected from the preceding clause loses further meaning. If I made an error in the "be" line at one point, I apologize, it was not the error I was trying to correct, which was separating dependent clauses, and should be regarded as a typo.

So please, re-write the line however you want, with whatever grammar pleases you. But please make sure the sentence still conveys the correct meaning. This is not meant as a personal attack, I simply think that your changes indicate a lack of understanding; you are privileging form over substance. --Fastfission 02:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me a bit of the confusion was about groups being in favor of racial higiene and extermination, versus groups being victims of racial higiene and extemination. Flammifer 03:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree my edit radically changed the meaning of the sentence. However, I'm open to more comments and welcome others to make an edit Fastfission can understand. Wyss 03:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, note, Fastfission made a change we may be able to agree on. Wyss 03:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Intro

What do you think of this proposed edit to the intro?

• The description of goals (why supporters advocated hereditary qualities be improved) should probably come before description of means to those goals.

That's ok by me, although I think the means were put first as a pre-emptive safety against over-sensitized readers hitting the edit button too fast while getting into this article on an amazingly controverial and misunderstood (regardless of PoV) topic.

• What do you guys think of removing 'frames disability in negative terms?' It doesn't appear to be discussed in article, and seems like a pretty common sense observation.--Nectarflowed^T 07:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Advocates of the handicapped are extremely vocal on this point. It should stay in, if for no other reason than to swiftly show the article is written with balance and understanding of context. Wyss 08:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a reference for a notable figure having made this criticism? I don't really understand it; are those who make this criticism claiming disability isn't viewed in negative terms, that is, given the choice of having cystic fibrosis or not, either choice is equally good? Having said that, I know this is a sensitive area. Best, Nectarflowed ^T 08:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Nicholas cited Tom Shakespeare (I looked into it and the discussion is on this talk page). While I don't personally agree this is an inevitable outcome, past abusive applications indeed have framed the handicapped in negative terms. I believe their concern is handicapped people will always be marginalized by efforts along these lines, even if they're only applied to unborn kids. I do think the statement represents a widely expressed PoV and is helpful as-is in the opening. Wyss 08:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The means of eugenics have always been more controversial and central than the goals, especially in its historical context (for which it is best known). I think the format of 1. basic statement of what it is, 2. brief list of historical means, 3. brief list of stated goals, 4. brief list of criticisms, is well balanced and cuts to the ethical chase (which I think is necessary to do for a topic such as this). --Fastfission 12:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That's ok by me. Keep in mind, even the goals are controversial and considered to be undeterminable by science (while the means are considered to be identifiable by scientific methodology). Wyss 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The means are more central in terms of history, but listing them prior to the goals has the effect of the means appearing to be more central to the philosophy than the goals themselves (the reason the philosophy exists). The goals of the philosophy (why hereditary qualities should be changed) can't be separated from the definition of the philosophy, which is what the current prioritization accomplishes. Even a purely historical account needs to start with a complete definition.

Wikipedia precedent on this issue is reflected, for example, in the stem cell article, another controversial topic. The header prioritization there is: 1. Stem cells are replenishing cells (definition). 2. Researchers hope to use them to cure diseases (goal). 3. Embryonic stem cell research controversially destroys embryos (controversiality). The topic is only widely known because of its controversiality, but a complete description of the research (why researchers are interested in stem cells) still comes first. The nazism article also does not prioritize controversiality over definition. --Nectarflowed ^T 14:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

^T 20:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If the article can be stabilized with that structure, I'm indeed happier with it. Wyss 19:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Tom Shakespeare

Shakespeare very persuasively argues that there is little difference between "old eugenics" and "new eugenics" (i.e. genomics). He states that:

"The Human Genome Project has been hailed as the Holy Grail of future health. I would argue that it does not mark a radical departure from traditional approaches to the ‘disability problem’. While historical genetics operates at the level of populations, contemporary eugenics operates at the level of the individual and families. While the rhetoric speaks of improving health, the current reality is that detection and termination are the only option in most cases" (1995: 8-10).

He additionally argues that both "old" and "new" eugenics frames disability as being something which is undesirable - something akin to the framing of ethnicity in negative terms. The message that eugenics sends out to disabled people is thus: "we pitty you, and in the future we will try to prevent your likes from happening again" - which is a pretty negative message. This message is even more negative when taken in the context of the everyday discrimination that disabled people are forced to contend with.--Nicholas 13:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I should note that Shakespeare's remark is very PoV and while worthy of mention in the header, the statement "...frames disability as being something which is undesirable" is a finely crafted semantic trap written by an expert in political advocacy. For starters, in modern scholarship "disability" isn't a scientifically definable quality, so his statement fails an important test of any hypothesis... it can't be falsified. Wyss 13:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is obviously a PoV. But what isn't? Plus, Shakespeare wouldn't argue that disability is "scientifically definable". So, i'm not sure what you are getting at with your criticism?--Nicholas 13:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I run into that remark more and more these days on WP. What isn't PoV? "Abraham Lincoln is widely noted as the 16th president of the United States." There are other examples. Anyway I'm not criticising anything, Nicholas, and the Shakespeare "frames as undesirable" reference will remain in the header as long as I'm editing this article (subject to consensus), I think it's extremely helpful to remind people about the slippery slope he alludes to. Wyss 13:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro 'Take-home' message

We probably don't need this 'take-home' message concluding the intro summary. As it is now, this constitutes the 4rth reference to Nazi abuses in the intro. Covering the Nazi abuses which the infamy derives is adequate without further emphasis.--Nectar ^T 23:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that too. It's got to be an artifact of all the different people who have participated in trying to find appropriate wording and content for the header. Wyss 12:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure "racial hygiene" should be listed - as far as I can tell it's something different then eugenics, not a means of enforcing it - at least, in my mind, the two concepts don't fit together that way. (Eugenics would rather seem to be a mean to enforce racial hygiene).

Maybe something along the lines of "Eugenics was the justification of several of the worst policies of Nazi Germany" ? Flammifer 14:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Racial hygiene was closely related to the Nazi take on eugenics, as a means to goals articulated (so to speak) through the invocation of eugenics but I don't care if the term is included in the header or not. Wyss 15:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Commodifies hereditary traits

One of the biggest criticisms I've seen regarding eugenic attitudes is that they commodify hereditary traits. The header currently represents this criticism with what appears to be a sub-topic within it: this commodification includes the negative commodification of disability. That sub-topic should be in the article, but I think the header should probably go with the broad category that subsumes it.--Nectar ^T 22:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Catholic opposition

Almost all non-Catholic western nations adopted some eugenics legislation.

So far, this is the only line even hinting at the Catholic Church's longstanding opposition to eugenics. Is this just an oversight, or is there a reason for the omission? -- Temtem 01:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think at one point there was a line about it, but yes, there should be a line that the Catholic Church was one of the most consistent and long-standing opponents of eugenic policies and legislation, and even had guarantees pushed through in Nazi Germany, if I recall, that could get Catholics judged dysgenic out of compulsory sterilization procedures. There were a few lesser Catholic figures though who issued pro-eugenic statements (justifying it under a notion of "greater good") which were blandied about by eugenicists but I'm pretty sure these were never sanctioned by the Church establishment. --Fastfission 01:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Main image

While I think Image:Eugenicstreebig.jpg is not a bad replacement for Image:Eugenics congress logo.png, it 1. doesn't have any copyright information on its description page, 2. is marked on the image as having specific requirements (Noncommercial Educational Use Only) which are against Wikipedia policy (we don't use copyrighted-with-permission anymore). Now of course the idea that one image could be of a different copyright status than the other is not easy to see, but the one provided by the APS is the original, potentially un-published version of the logo (which puts it into a different copyright category), whereas the other is the published version (which I scanned myself from a known source), and can be reasonably and easily claimed to be in the public domain. The former could only be used here under a fair use claim, except that there is an adequate free alternative available (the latter image), so it wouldn't qualify. At least, that's my read on it. If you guys really want one that shows the grain of the page, I could go back and scan that other one in color, though I admit to not finding it a wildly worthwhile addition. --Fastfission 11:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No image had been visible beneath that caption for a week or two, so I added the largest one I found in a web search. Though it has been described as a logo, it appears to be in fact an 84-year old illustration. It is useful to casual readers who erroneously associate eugenics with extremism, when in fact we are seeing a major resurgence in western societies and worldwide. It's important that lay readers see the parallels with the iteration last century to see where this ideology of "good" genes inevitably leads. Jokestress 14:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Weird. I just looked in two other browsers, and that image comes up fine. Still not appearing in Firefox for some reason (Mac OS). Jokestress 14:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Firefox for win-xp also fails to show the image as of my timestamp. IE6 does show it. --Rikurzhen 17:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I use Firefox 1.0.1 (wintel), have always seen it and still do. Wyss 17:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Firefox 1.0.6. Maybe a FF-WP interaction bug. I notice the image area flashes when the page loads. --Rikurzhen 21:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've been using Firefox on Mac OS X for a long time now and the image comes up just fine each time. So I don't know what the deal is -- there's nothing unique about the file. Anyway, in case you didn't see, the picture you uploaded is the same as the one I uploaded except for its publication status (and thus copyright status) and the fact that it was scanned in color for no apparent reason. And for the record, that "non-extremist" emblem was for a conference which advocated all manners of compulsory sterilization of the disabled and had major components involving scientific racism, fronted by people who lauded the Nazi program when it came along. So it makes it especially ironic that for you it represents some sort of anti-extremist image... --Fastfission 22:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood my comment, Fastfission. Those "extremist" views were pretty widely held at the time, to the point of being mainstream. Eugenics really captured the imagination of a lot of people back then, and we are seeing a resurgence right now. I think if you follow the NPOV edits I have been doing on these topics throughout WP, especially on race and intelligence, you will see where I am coming from on eugenics and scientific racism. In the way that image was considered innocuous at the time, a lot of the "mainstream" knowledge being produced which claims group differences in ability will come to be seen in the way that tree is seen today. Jokestress 23:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see, there was one line which I misread which threw my whole interpretation off.. "erroneously associate eugenics with extremism" — I thought you were one of the camp which tries to downplay the history of eugenics, but in re-reading it I can see you were making a more subtle point! My apologies. Perahsp the difficulty with the image is that it is a PNG? I could try converting it to JPEG and see if that helps anything. --Fastfission 00:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see the acutal image[16]. Something else is at fault. --Rikurzhen 00:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's very odd. Perhaps if one of you fellows could take a screenshot of this and post it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? This seems like a problem with more than this specific page -- this is the first I've heard of it (I added the image to this page last May, and have always been able to see it). --Fastfission 02:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The non-visibility of the image for some users is a known problem. Wikipedia divides images at random into two letter directories, and this one is served from the address http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Eugenics_congress_logo.png. If you have ad-blocking software installed, it sees the /ad/ and blocks the image. I know that Symantec Client Security and similar products do this. You have to reconfigure your ad-blocking software to allow through anything from wikimedia.org.-gadfium 03:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

AHHH!!! I should have figured that out. --Rikurzhen 03:51, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

its not at random its based on the first two characters of the base64 md5 of the filename. Plugwash 21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Reduction in genetic diversity

Wyss wrote: "loss of diversity is a risk regardless and the notion of "defects" may be socially definable but not scientifically."

1. Genetic disorders are scientifically definable, e.g. Tay Sachs and Achondroplasia. These disorders aren't merely social constructs. Tay Sachs alleles are already being reduced in the population through reproductive therapy.

Some of these conditions are scientifically identifiable, but characterizing them as disorders is a social exercise. This is not meant as criticism of that social process, only as observation. Wyss 07:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That's one POV, but certainly not a universal one. I can think of several criteria that could be used to identify a disorder: for example, the effects of a loss of function mutation, or any condition which shortens lifespan would be a disorder. No doubt most such disorders are sub-clinical, but there are known obvious ones such as those Nectar pointed out. --Rikurzhen 08:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

2. If there is a potential risk, surely it is definable. If you're saying there are other problematic effects of reduced genetic diversity, we should probably include those too. --Nectar ^T 07:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not pushing a PoV. I'm not even saying that reduced diversity is uniformly something to be avoided. My only concern is that your edit seemed to imply that that "disorders" (rather than "conditions") can be defined scientifically and that eliminating their occurence in the genome would not result in less diversity, while eliminating other characteristics would result in less diversity. The loss of diversity is always a risk when one attempts to cull undesireable characteristics from a genome (be it fruit flies, corn, cats or people). Again, my comments are not PoV: Perhaps it is ok to eliminate characteristics which society has deemed undesireable, but any such activity involves risk, one of which is loss of diversity, which could (but would not necessarily) result in "biological disaster." Wyss 07:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

There are plenty of things you could do that would result in a "biological disaster", but has anyone said that eugenics would cause such an event and what likelihood did they assign to this disaster? --Rikurzhen 08:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I believe likelihoods would vary widely according to sundry contexts. Are editors reading criticism that doesn't exist into the phrase "biological disaster"? I didn't write that line btw... Wyss 09:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Crit section removed for now

Eugenics is not science. Genetics is science. Eugenics is social policy. Calling Eugenics social policy is not a criticism of eugenics. Attempting to apply eugenics as a science is a pseudoscience, however, an activity which would be open to criticism.

Altering the genome could include loss of diversity. This in itself is not necessarily a risk, but could be.

"Disability" and "disorder" are social constructs. They may be valid social constructs, or not, but they are not scientific descriptions. It is possible to socially assign a label of "disorder" to a scientifically identified condition or syndrome.

None of this is PoV or criticism. It's definition of basic terms which, with all due respect, is slowly being eroded by the recent edits to this article. Wyss 09:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, such a controversial topic as eugenics deserves a criticism section, and the points presently covered in it are points that are made by critics. Criticism sections are standard on controversial articles. You're welcome to contribute constructively. I'm going to revert the removal so the other editors here can weigh in.--Nectar ^T 09:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The content you've included isn't criticism at all... it's conflated musings put forth with non-standard definitions.

The definition and documented history of eugenics isn't controversial, it is the application of eugenic social policy that has been and continues to be controversial. I sincerely think you're seeing controversy where none exists, and not seeing it where it does, mostly because of a lack of clearly defined terms. Wyss 09:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

...Nectarflowed, unfortunately I think you're damaging this article. I'd like to revert it back, but I guess we can repair it gradually as other editors participate over time. Wyss 10:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, the goal of everyone here is for the article to have a rigorously neutral point of view. The criticism section is for any notable criticisms that have been leveled against this topic. They deserve to be elaborated on. There are no criticisms in the present section that haven't verifiably been made by critics. Are you proposing some of the criticisms presently listed should be removed? --Nectar ^T

You haven't acknowledged my discussion of definitions. Wyss 11:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Which definitions can be more clear or more standard?--Nectar ^T 11:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Eugenics is not a science. Genetics is science.

• Eugenics is a (pursuit of) social policy. However, calling eugenics social policy is not a criticism of eugenics.

• Eugenics becomes a pseudoscience (and subject to criticism for being pseudoscience) only when mistakenly applied as a reductive science.

Why don't you add this to the article? The pseudoscience criticism has been in the article, even in the header, for a long time without this clarification.--Nectar ^T 22:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• In principle, altering any genome can include some loss of diversity. In scientific terms this is in itself not necessarily desireable or undesireable. However, under certain circumstances loss of diversity can result in a population being more susceptible to disease, environmental threats and other factors both known and unknown.

• The notions of "disability" and "disorder" are social constructs. These may be helpful or unhelpful social constructs, but they are not scientific descriptions. The human genome is complex, deeply threaded and apparently, highly interactive. Some conditions and syndromes which are presently viewed as undesireable may have hidden or undescribed benefits for the wider population (or they may not have any meaningful benefits at all, only costs). Most of the controversies have emerged here... and continue to.

• It is possible to socially assign a label of "disability" or "disorder" to a scientifically defined and identified characteristic, condition or syndrome. It is also possible for these labels ("disability" or "disorder") to shift over time as social goals and scientific understanding change. Wyss 12:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Nectarflowed, I think the criticism section is inaccurate and misleading. I read it more as an illustration of your own personal questions and thinking about eugenics, described in unacceptable and mistaken terms, rather than as a scholarly summary of documented criticisms in proper context. I strongly think the entire section should be removed. Wyss 14:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you're disputing (1) the appropriateness of including a criticism section, (2) the points chosen for inclusion, and (3) the presentation of those points.

You appear to agree that these points should be included in the article, as they are already included in the header and the 'What is eugenics?' section. The advantage of including a criticism section is that criticisms of the topic can be explicated there. It would be an unusual decision to omit a criticism section from an article on a topic that has received so much criticism.

The points presently included are some of the most common criticisms of eugenics and are all verifiable (Google:eugenics objectify OR commodify OR objectification OR commodification, Google:eugenics pseudoscience) i.e. they are not my "own personal questions and thinking about eugenics." Can we agree on 1 and 2? Are you arguing the pseudoscience criticism should be removed entirely from the article?--Nectar ^T 21:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Isolating pro and con

I'm not very happy with the "criticism" section either. Generally, I think that NPOV is best server when ideas and their criticism are the closest together. Isolating "pro" and "contra" sections is not as informative.

As this article is not about a single and well-defined subject, but rather covers a pretty wide range of stuff - the auld days when eugenics thought it was a science, a lot of history and references to similar ideas, considerations as to whether modern genetic technology is some kind of eugenics, modern proponents of eugenics - all those won't lead to the same kind of criticism. So regrouping all the diffeent stuff from those sections and mashing them together ? Bah, humbug.

I think the article could take a better discussion of the present scientific status of the old eugenic ideas. I went to the library and looked up a few things, but found hardly nothing worth including. The population genetics books I looked through had nothing about, say, dysgenics. I don't even know if it's a concept that's been invalidated, or that it's just too touchy an issue for the average scholar to risk his career on. So yeah, more info on how eugenics fits in with the current scientific stuff would be nice :) Criticism ? I'm not sure - or at least, it'd need more criticism than the three ideas in the present version.

(What's more, as far as I can tell, the main criticism of Eugenics has always been "Boo ! Evil ! Nazi !", a thesis already adequately covered by the present article.) Flammifer 01:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The common critical argument that eugenic attitudes intrinsically lead to human rights abuses or Nazi-esque atrocities should be discussed. Counterpoints are out there, and should be included. The pseudoscience, objectification, and reduction of genetic diversity criticisms seem to be criticisms of all of eugenics, rather than belonging to specific sections that they would have to be removed from. I agree that more description of eugenics would be beneficial, as the article is currently predominantly about its history and criticisms.--Nectar ^T 03:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

For pseudoscience, I don't think it applies to a whole, but only to eugenics trying to present itself as a science, or to the time when eugenics had a strong association with scientific racism and associated pseudoscience. Discussion as to whether reprogenetics constitute eugenics, for example, have little to do with pseudoscience. If soemeone says "we should reduce the number of carriers of genetic diseases" or "we should try to improve the national average IQ", how could those statements be qualified as pseudoscience ? They are making zero scientific claims.

As for the "reduction of geneti diversity" argument, I've only heard it put forward by one person, only on wikipedia, so I don't think it deserves it's own seperate section either. Flammifer 04:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statement regarding the limitation of the pseudoscience criticism appears to be an argument not about the criticism section, but about the article's current presentation of the pseudoscience criticism, both in the 'What is eugenics?' and 'Criticisms' section. I've rewritten the pseudoscience criticism section to try to take that into account. --Nectar ^T 22:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience "hogwash"

I don't know who wrote that last verion of the "criticism/pseudoscience" section, but it was hogwash. Eugenics was considered a pseudo-science starting in the 1930s, when the Eugenics Record Ofice was shut down for lack of scientific research. -Willmcw 22:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[Edit conflict with below] Don't forget to add sources sayong which critics say what, etc. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, you appear to be responding to this line: "Since eugenics was historically considered to be a science, this argument contends as long as it claimed to be scientific, it can be called pseudoscientific."

Eugenics was historically considered to be scientific, so the statement appears to be accurate (the pseudoscience criticism doesn't apply to social philosophies, only to fields that claim to be science). This is what the above discussion has been about.

Your argument appears to be that the primary basis of the pseudoscience criticism is that eugenics is applied science (engineering), not research science. You're welcome to help explicate the pseudoscience criticism or any other. --Nectar ^T 23:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are the statements that seem murky or misleading, and should be removed, or sourced fixed:

• Some critics have argued that because valueing hereditary traits relative to each other by definition requires at least basic value judgements, rather than being done solely through scientific observation, eugenics can't be considered scientific.

Source?

If anybody has a good source for the pseudoscience criticism that saves time, but the pseudoscience criticism is mentioned in passing (without explanation) so commonly that it seems like it should stay in the article until we can get a good source.--Nectar ^T 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Since eugenics was historically considered to be a science, this argument contends as long as it claimed to be scientific, it can be called pseudoscientific, which refers to a field that isn't scientific but is sometimes erroneously regarded as such.

According to whom?

I think you're referring to the definition of pseudoscience, which is included in the sentence you quote. The definition of pseudoscience is "erroneously regarded as scientific." If it doesn't claim to be scientific, it's not pseudoscientific. See Wyss and Flammifer's above comments.--Nectar ^T 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Some defenders have responded that the application of this label is politically motivated, and that even medicine itself was historically poorly practiced, such as by treating patients by bloodletting, but that doesn't have legitimate bearing on the credibility of the contemporary discipline.(Nuenke 2000)

Is Nuenke a notable defender of eugenics?

Nuenke seems to be minimally notable. He is the founder of www.neoeugenics.net and www.prometheism.net. He has about 5000 google group hits.--Nectar ^T 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Some critics also argue that it hasn't been demonstrated that the frequency of targeted hereditary traits can be modified by social means.

Who?

This criticism is around. The criticism section is presently being constructed. You're welcome to help out.--Nectar ^T 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• This has been responded to by noting that humans have been able throughout history to direct the hereditary characteristics of domesticated species, plant and animal, through artificial selection.[17]

Is this about the criticism or about the responses to the criticism?

This is a response to the criticism from a defender of eugenics. It seems like the current presentation makes that distinction.--Nectar ^T 02:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Those are the issues that I have with the section. -Willmcw 23:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, but none of them seem to answer the questions. "This criticism is around " is not sufficient sourcing for anything. Nuenke is a crackpot with two websites. If we really quoted him as an example of modern eugenics you'd howl in protest, I imagine. And anytime I see "some critics" without a reference to who is doing the criticizing, I'm dubious. While I appreciate that this is a work in progress, mauybe it shold progress more on someone's hard drive before we put unsourced POV assertions into the article. -Willmcw 04:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The criticism that human genetics are too complex for eugenics to work is common. Richard A Soloway summarizes: "polygenic inheritance, gene-gene interaction, and gene-environment interaction, [...] undermined the scientific foundations of eugenics." Soloway, R. A. (1990). Demography and degeneration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. (p.353) --Nectar ^T 01:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I was trying to say that... hogwash. If this article is presented NPoV there won't be need for a crit section. There's no controversy on what eugenics is (a means of social policy, not a science), or its history... only on how such social policy might be pursued etc. The only reason to bring up the pseudo-science aspect is to note that eugenics becomes p.s. only when mistakenly applied as reductive science. Genetics is science. Eugenics is social policy- true enough that eugenics was thought to be a science through the first half of the 20th century, and so on. Wyss 08:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

If eugenics were impossible thousands of years of human-guided evolution of dogs and cats and horses etc would not have produced different breeds with different capabilities and characteristics. That is basic and obvious. Hopefully you will follow this User:Wyss#Sway_me and stop pushing that politics. Race Reality 06:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Adopt summary style?

Does anybody oppose adopting Wikipedia:Summary style for the very detailed history section?--Nectar ^T 22:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Please stop trying to remove or substantially shorten the history section. Thanks -Willmcw 04:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Has he been doing that ?

I think summary style and either a history of eugenics article or some Eugenics in the united States, Eugenics in Nazi Germany, etc. articles might eventually be useful. But there would need to be some stronger content in the rest of the article, I think that has a higher priority.

Alternatively, we could integrate the article better with existing pages like Dysgenics and Compulsory sterilization, and have a summary of them and a pointer to the main article. Flammifer 06:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, I haven't touched the history section. Wikipedia:Summary style is a standard format and has been applied on countless pages. You might find it interesting to look at other long pages that have adopted it, such as United States, Intelligence Quotient, and Race and intelligence. A concise summary here probably meets the needs of most readers better than a detailed exposition, and would contain all the major points of the subject.--Nectar ^T 19:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you list your proposed outline here? I'm not clear on what you are thinking of doing. What is the exact problem that you are seeking to fix? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know too... Wyss 11:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with a summary style and more detailed articles for the above topics if someone wants to take the time to write them. Eugenics in the United States would be a fairly straightforward article to write and would allow a lot more detail than has been possible so far. However the history section here must still contain the basics front-and-center. But shunting off details to other articles is just fine by me, if it is done in good faith. --Fastfission 00:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Genetic diversity original argument

User:Race Reality, the argument you added to the genetic diversity section appears to be an original argument, rather than just noting basic biology. Ideally this article will include any notable counter-arguments that have been made in response to criticisms, but for an encyclopedia article they need to come from published sources. Richard Lynn's Eugenics: A Reassessment (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) might be a good resource and is readable on Amazon in its entirety through searching.--Nectar ^T 23:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No Original Arguments? I think this is funny. Don't you? Race Reality 00:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's pretty much the policy though, and has been talked about before (though usually as Wikipedia:No original interpretations). In any event, it's technically original research if you can't cite any secondary sources which contain the argument. --Fastfission 00:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • Someone would claim to be enforcing rules against me which "have been talked about" (but don't exist) only because my edit was ideologically incorrect. True, but not politically true. "Can't cite a source"? Any biology or health text book will mention rickets disease, and sunburn, increased risk of contagion from inter-group contact, and whatever else I said. I see the value in citing things you can easily find with google now, after making politically incorrect but honest edits and being attacked. But I don't need to cite a source for common human health information. Try rickets. Walk outside and back in and see if you have a personal thriving temperature. (You do.) (This is very unoriginal research.) Race Reality 02:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia:no original research policy does indeed exist. It includes this warning: "Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers (e.g. in a library or non-Wikipedia web-page)." So, unless this interpretation of Eugenics has been published somewhere, it is original research. -Willmcw 03:29, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

You're being dishonest Willmcw and pretending you can't read your own writing. Wikipedia:No Original Arguments Wikipedia:No original interpretations Wikipedia:No Original Arguments Wikipedia:No original interpretations Wikipedia:No Original Arguments Wikipedia:No original interpretations Wikipedia:No Original Arguments Wikipedia:No original interpretations Wikipedia:No Original Arguments Wikipedia:No original interpretations Wikipedia:No Original Arguments Wikipedia:No original interpretations Now everyone can definitely read it. Race Reality 05:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone referring to no original arguments or no original interpretations is ultimately referring to the no original research policy, which can be read here. That sounds right that an edit being non-politically correct is not grounds for questioning the edit, and that civility and good faith are always the best approaches. The original research being referred to is not the common health information that you note, but rather the thesis that the information exemplifies: "If eugenic policies are applied with an eye toward the multiple needs of a society then they must create individuals for multiple biological niches." --Nectar ^T 06:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a charitable reading of RR's aim in this context. The criticism of eugenics is that some eugenics proposals could lead to loss of diversity which could in some circumstances contribute to a biological disaster. RR's addition was probably original research. What would seem to satisfy the point RR was making without violating WP:NOR is to note that this criticism is a pragmatic rather than a logical one. The criticims is essentially an argument from the precautionary principle, which is a risk assesement, rather than a statement about certainty. Put another way, an omniscient eugenicist could avoid this problem. Again, all that we need to note is that this is a statement about risk (a pragmatic concern) rather than a claim that there is a problem that is essential to eugenics. --Rikurzhen 08:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sailer

What's the problem with the Sailer quote? It keeps getting deleted. It seems to me to represent new thinking on what he calls "libertarian eugenics", and its potential effects. -Willmcw 01:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't reverted it, but that quote sounds like utter nonsense to me, so unscientifically founded (PoV or not) that it could damage the article's credibility. Wyss 01:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Unscientific? Gee, we can't have anything like that in an article about a pseudoscience. ;) Reading the article, "The Coming War over Genes: Darwin's Enemies on the Left", in which he describes how the "Age of Galton" will replace the current "Age of Darwin", it's hard not to see that he is endorsing "libertarian eugenics". -Willmcw 01:49, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Eugenics is pseudoscience only if mistakenly applied as science. Eugenics is social policy, genetics is science.

• Eugenics, as a social policy, could as easily be used to increase the prevelance of homosexual behavior (if indeed such behavior has some genetic origin, which is not yet clearly established). Wyss 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Though gene selection eugenics "could" breed a race of blue-haired people. The point that Sailer is making is that, if allowed to consciously pick the genes of their children (through market-driven or libertarian eugenics), parents "would" want masculine sons and feminine daughters. So if eugenics is a social policy rather than a science, why is there an objection to quoting someone on the societal repurcussions of eugenics? -Willmcw 02:10, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm only saying this particular quote is pure musing. Why would parents necessarily want "masculine" sons and "feminine" daughters? Or... why would they want androgeny? Where's the scientific basis for such a prediction. It's ok to include the quote but it's all bluff IMO. Wyss 13:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Generally I think Sailer is pretty sober and credible. But NOW doesn't seem like "largely" a front group for lesbians. More like "largely" for abortion privacyand women's affirmative action. i'm sure he's serious, but why would he think that? Race Reality 21:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Blindsided by his own agendas, like many of us :) Wyss 21:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The only other reference to NOW and lesbianism that he appears to have made is: "This media reticence [regarding lesbians' views on possible biological roots of homosexuality] is noteworthy, considering that the press otherwise so assiduously keeps us informed of the views of the lesbian-dominated National Organization for Women's on child-rearing, marriage, beauty, men and, of course, What the Women of America Want..."[18]--Nectar ^T 23:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer getting someone who is actually cited and taken seriously by the non-blogging world. This quote is just stupid: "Steve Sailer argues such governmental abuses don't necessarily derive from eugenics' central emphasis on the hereditary inequalities posited by natural selection, which is seen by that "Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality."[19]" I mean, anyone with the smallest bit of common sense knows that two wrongs don't make a right -- nobody is arguing that the only reason anybody ever did anything awful was in the name of inequality. People have done awful things in the name of inequality, and they have done awful things for all sorts of other reasons too (of course, saying that Lenin, Stalin, and Mao killed in the name of "equality" is pretty misleading and stupid too). If we are going to quote him, we should choose quotes that don't make him look like he can't do simple logic, assuming he can do better. --Fastfission 16:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see how the argument presented in the quote might seem just stupid, but the position it's responding to - "genes imply genocide" (Pinker)[20] - is actually common enough. Tom Shakespeare discusses this position in the form of "Is genetics the same as eugenics?"[21][22] (He doesn't think so).

Regarding Sailer's notability, he is a pretty minor science and politics columnist, but he does publish in a variety of respected publications and gets cited by, for example, NYTimes op-ed staff writers. An Amazon search yields references to him in 26 books. Anyway, I've replaced Sailer's quote with a better quote from Pinker. --Nectar ^T 12:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a big improvement. Again, I didn't disagree with having someone representing the argument, I just thought using such a minor figure with such a bad response was a bad idea — it makes the argument look minor, and it makes it look poorly structured, to have a poorly spoken representative for it. The Pinker quote is much better spoken (even if I personally think he is responding to a straw man). --Fastfission 15:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I find the Steven Pinker quote vastly more helpful because it's founded on supportable history (even if I do think his take on it's two-dimensional). Wyss 17:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Shakespeare again

Dear Nectar, I think you are misrepresenting Tom Shakespeare. The first of those two external links that you provided is written by someone other than Shakespeare and it only summarises his view in one (rather crude) sentence. The second external link doesn't say anything in support of your interpretation. However, if you read his book you will find that he unequivocally states:

“The Human Genome Project has been hailed as the Holy Grail of future health. I would argue that it does not mark a radical departure from traditional approaches to the ‘disability problem’. While historical genetics operates at the level of populations, contemporary eugenics operates at the level of the individual and families. While the rhetoric speaks of improving health, the current reality is that detection and termination are the only option in most cases” (1995: 8-10).

Thus, Shakespeare recognises that new genomics "does not mark a radical departure" from old eugenics.--Nicholas 10:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. I never saw Shakespeare's article toward the bottom of that first link [23]. But still, I think Shakespeare may have been misrepresented. In the paper that Nectar kindly brought to my attention, Shakespeare states "I do not think that we live in a society with eugenic policies, and i do not think that the reproductive decisions of men and women are eugenic. However, I do not htink that the problem ends there". He then goes on to discuss the "illusion of choice" that is offered 'to men and women' in their reproductive decisions. For instance, he says that 'the conveyor belt of routine testing and anti-natal care removes the possiblity of informed consent, and drives people toward decisions that they may not have wanted to make'. So, because Shakepseare is currently misrepresented I will remove all reference to him from the article.--Nicholas 18:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)