Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “EUGENICS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Experiences and voices of eugenics field-workers: 'women's work' in biology.

Experiences and ideas of eugenic 'field-workers' offer a new historical perspective on American eugenics, while highlighting terms of women's early twentieth-century scientific education and research employment. To advance knowledge of heredity, the US Eugenics Record Office (ERO), between 1910 and 1924, trained 258 students (85% of them women) to collect information about individuals, families and communities. Though some historians have dismissed eugenic field-workers as careless or uncritical, many had scientific or medical backgrounds, and took research seriously. While gendered expectations and other obstacles limited women's hopes for professional advance, the female field-workers created a strong community and culture of their own. Comparing notes, some recognized that their results did not support eugenic assumptions, and cautioned against letting enthusiasm overwhelm scientific integrity. These women field-workers raised serious questions about methodology and ethics, but the situation of eugenics work at the time undermined chances for such criticism to be acknowledged. After World War I, military-related research and political manoeuvring dominated eugenics, further marginalizing field-workers. Ironically, while ERO head Charles Davenport had wanted students to promote eugenics, some demonstrated more fundamental commitment to scientific ideals--but to little avail.

Eugenics↗
PubMed2005

[Eugenic indication for abortion--a historical background].

BACKGROUND: Modern discussions on fetal diagnostics and abortion frequently leave the impression that the eugenic clause in the Norwegian abortion act is a heritage from the eugenics movement in the 1930s. However, although much has been written on this, few have systematically pursued the historical development of the eugenic clause. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The article describes the development of Norwegian abortion legislation in general, and the eugenic clause in particular, from the discussions in the 1930s, through the Nazi abortion law during the German occupation (which is relatively unknown in the historiographic literature), and to the legislation that was finally passed after the war. The sources are primarily official documents (committee reports, drafts for legislation, debates in parliament) as well as discussions in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. Various proposals are discussed according to two criteria: a) the role hereditary arguments played in the formulation of a eugenic clause; and b) the extent to which such a clause is justified by social, as opposed to individual, concerns. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: Although social concerns every now and then figure in justifications for the eugenic clause, the lack of eugenic argumentation in Norwegian abortion debates until 1960 is striking. There are traces of a clear eugenic or racial hygienic approach in the 1930s, but this thinking was left dead by the abortion act instituted by the Nazi regime.

Abortion, Legal↗
PubMed1997

Beyondism: Raymond B. Cattell and the new eugenics.

A significant confusion has arisen out of the mass of work done on the history of eugenics in the last two decades. Early scholars of the subject treated eugenics as a marginalized or obsolete movement of the radical right. Subsequent research has shown that eugenic ideas were adopted in diverse national settings by very different groups, including--among others--liberals, communists and Catholics, as well as radical rightists. This complexity is sometimes taken to mean that eugenic has no special ideological associations, that it is historically and potentially a beast of a thousand heads. It is not. Although people of varied ideological commitments have been attracted to eugenics, ideologues of the radical right, and above all interwar fascists, have been uniquely and centrally involved in its development. Fascism and the radical right are also complex entities, but for all the heterogeneity of both eugenics and fascism, the special historical relationship between the two cannot be ignored. This relationship is exemplified in the work of the influential psychologist, Raymond B. Cattell. Cattell was an early supporter of German national socialism and his work should be understood in the context of interwar fascism. The new religious movement that he founded, 'Beyondism', is a neo-fascist contrivance. Cattell now promulgates ideas that he formulated within a demimonde of radical eugenists and neo-fascists that includes such as associates as Revilo Oliver, Roger Pearson, Wilmot Robertson and Robert K. Graham. These ideas and Cattell's role in the history of eugenics deserve deeper analysis than they have hitherto received. Far from being of merely antiquarian interest, his work currently encourages the propagation of radical eugenist ideology. It is unconscionable for scholars to permit these ideas to go unchallenged, and indeed honored and emulated by a new generation of ideologues and academicians whose work helps to dignify the most destructive political ideas of the twentieth century.

Eugenics↗
PubMed1997

Leilani Muir versus the philosopher king: eugenics on trial in Alberta.

The Province of Alberta in Canada was the only jurisdiction in the British Empire where a eugenic sterilization law was passed (in 1928) and vigorously implemented. The pace of sterilization orders accelerated during the Nazi era and remained high after World War II, terminating only in 1972 when the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed. The Alberta Eugenics Board operated away from public and legislative scrutiny, and many things done in the name of eugenics were clearly illegal. Eugenics was put on trial in Alberta in 1995 and a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench ruled in 1996 that the government had wrongly sterilized Leilani Muir. After hearing evidence about the history of the eugenics movement, the origins of Alberta's Sexual Sterilization Act, the operation of the Eugenics Board, and details of Muir's life, Madam Justice Joanne B. Veit found that 'the damage inflicted by the operation was catastrophic', the 'wrongful stigmatization of Ms. Muir as a moron ... has humiliated Ms. Muir every day of her life', and 'the circumstances of Ms. Muir's sterilization were so high-handed and so contemptuous of the statutory authority to effect sterilization, and were undertaken in an atmosphere that so little respected Ms. Muir's human dignity that the community's, and the court's, sense of decency is offended'. Veit awarded Muir damages of $740,780 CAD and legal costs of $230,000 CAD. The order for Muir's sterilization was signed by John M. MacEachran, founder of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology at the University of Alberta and chairman of the Eugenics Board from 1929 to 1965. An exponent of Platonic idealism, MacEachran believed sterilization of children with a low IQ test score was a means of 'raising and safeguarding the purity of the race'. However, the Alberta Sterilization Act was passed and implemented with cavalier disregard for the principles of genetics as well as the rights of children.

Adult↗
PubMed1994

Distinguishing genetics and eugenics on the basis of fairness.

There is concern that human applications of modern genetic technologies may lead inexorably to eugenic abuse. To prevent such abuse, it is essential to have clear, formal principles as well as algorithms for distinguishing genetics from eugenics. This work identifies essential distinctions between eugenics and genetics in the implied nature of the social contract and the importance ascribed to individual welfare relative to society. Rawls's construction of 'justice as fairness' is used as a model for how a formal systems of ethics can be used to proscribe eugenic practices. Rawls's synthesis can be applied to this problem if it is assumed that in the original condition all individuals are ignorant of their genetic constitution and unwilling to consent to social structures which may constrain their own potential. The principles of fairness applied to genetics requires that genetic interventions be directed at extending individual liberties and be applied to the greatest benefit of individuals with the least advantages. These principles are incompatible with negative eugenics which would further penalize those with genetic disadvantage. These principles limit positive eugenics to those practices which are designed to provide absolute benefit to those individuals with least advantage, are acceptable to its subjects, and further a system of basic equal liberties. This analysis also illustrates how simple deviations from first principles in Rawls's formulation could countenance eugenic applications of genetic technologies.

Ethical Analysis↗
PubMed1999

On the concept of eugenics: preliminaries to a critical appraisal.

This paper's main issue is linked to what can be foreseen as the increasing capability of medical genetics to modify the genetic composition of the human species through direct interventions in the human genome for medical and non-medical purposes, i.e., the "risk" of a resurgence of eugenics. In current discussions on the topic (briefly presented in the first section), the "phantom of eugenics" is raised several times, but there is a great deal of confusion on what counts as eugenics, partly because of broad conceptual disagreement over the notion itself. Furthermore, according to some scholars there is no hope of overcoming this unsatisfactory conceptual uncertainty. Partly challenging this opinion, the second and third sections of this paper attempt to identify some basic features which could be seen as intrinsically linked to the notion of eugenics, with the aim of reducing the range of conceptual disagreement as a preliminary step in bringing into focus what exactly is wrong with practicing eugenics. The subsequent sections deal with the substantive issue of whether or not to practice eugenics from the point of view of the interest of future generations in the human species' genetic composition. The main moral arguments for and against eugenics are examined from the point of view of our obligations towards future generations, and the conclusion is in favor of a cautious "open-door" position.

Bioethics↗
PubMed2000

Eugenic sterilization and a qualified Nazi analogy: the United States and Germany, 1930-1945.

In the United States and Germany before World War II, physicians participated in state-authorized eugenic sterilization programs in an attempt to prevent persons deemed to possess undesirable heritable characteristics from propagating. A comparison of U.S. and German histories reveals similarities that argue against easy dismissal of a Nazi analogy. On the basis of a review of editorials in New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association from 1930 to 1945 it is difficult to accept the suggestion that the alliance between the medical profession and the eugenics movement in the United States was short-lived. Comparison of the histories of the eugenic sterilization campaigns in the United States and Nazi Germany reveals important similarities of motivation, intent, and strategy and differences that explain why support for eugenic sterilization in the United States gradually weakened. The eugenics movement in Germany was influenced by economic crisis, radical nationalism, Hitler's totalitarianism, and the medical profession's willing participation and attraction to Nazism for financial and ideological reasons. In the United States, a combination of public unease, Roman Catholic opposition, federal democracy, judicial review, and critical scrutiny by the medical profession reversed the momentum of the eugenics movement and led to the conclusion that eugenic sterilization should be voluntary.

Editorial Policies↗
PubMed2003

[Eugenics in neurology and psychiatry in Hungary between the two World Wars].

Eugenics became an organized movement in Hungary in 1914 with the establishment of the Section of Eugenics within the Association of Social Sciences (Társádalomtudományi Egyesület). Its secretary, the prominent biologist István Apáthy jr., defined the aims and the place of eugenics within the sanitation as well as the necessary steps of organization which should be taken in Hungary. It was especially some Hungarian psychiatrists: Márk Goldberger, Lajos Naményi, Gyula Donáth and László Benedek, the Hungarian Representative of the Committee of International Eugenical Organisations who after World War I urged eugenical law which envisaged voluntary sterilization. According to the opponents of eliminative eugenics--like Károly Csörsz, one of the first distinguished medical geneticists in Hungary--sterilization had not been scientifically based yet, because the ways and the probability of heredity of nervous and mental diseases, except for Huntington chorea, had not been explored yet. The outstanding neurologist, Karl Schaffer also opposed the sterilization bill worked out by Professor Benedek, so it was rejected by the National Council of Public Health in 1932 and was not discussed by the Hungarian Parliament either. In spite of its illegality, some sterilizations were executed, for example with the consent and the request of parents in the case of mentally retarded female to stop her reproduction. Only positive eugenics was legally supported by the marriage advisory bureau in the capital, but the interest in it was rather limited in interwar Hungary.

Castration↗
PubMed2004

To what extent were ideas and beliefs about eugenics held in Nazi Germany shared in Britain and the United States prior to the second world war?

The term eugenics was first coined by Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, in 1883. The eugenic movement gained public popularity across Europe and North America at the end of the Victorian era, fuelled by the concept of 'social Darwinism' and public fear of a decline in the number of ideal citizens. The origins of eugenic legislation can be found in the USA's immigration acts of the early 1880's. Indiana was the first state to pass sterilisation laws, in 1907. The laws that followed were used as templates by the Nazis, thirty years later. In Britain the Wood Committee (1924) and the Brock Committee (1931) both put pressure on parliament to introduce eugenic laws but were defeated. The anti-eugenics movement was stronger than in other protestant European countries and eugenics fell out of favour as the 1930's progressed. In the USA however, support remained strong, leading one activist to comment in 1934, 'The Germans are beating us at our own game'. There appears to have been little emphasis on eugenics in the Weimar Parliament, but the Nazi's legislation, on coming to power in 1933, surpassed anything conceived on either side of the Atlantic at the outbreak of war in 1939.

Eugenics↗
PubMed2025

Eugenics and polygenic embryo screening: Public, clinician, and patient perceptions of conditions versus traits.

PURPOSE: Polygenic embryo screening (PES) estimates an embryo's genetic chances of developing complex conditions (eg, cancer) and traits (eg, height). Stakeholders have raised concerns that PES promotes eugenic practices and ideology. METHODS: We surveyed a nationally representative sample of the US public on approval of screening embryos for 12 conditions and 12 traits and examined the association between disapproval and concern about eugenics. We also conducted semistructured interviews with US-based reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists and patients undergoing in vitro fertilization on their perspectives toward PES. RESULTS: Among the US public (n = 1423), disapproval of screening embryos for traits has a stronger association with concern that PES promotes eugenics than disapproval of screening embryos for conditions. Interviews with reproductive endocrinology and infertility specialists (n = 27) and patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (n = 26) suggest that perceptions of PES as eugenic were more common when discussing screening and selecting for or against traits versus selecting against conditions. CONCLUSION: Results suggest PES for traits is more frequently associated with eugenics and perceived often as unacceptable, whereas PES for conditions is perceived sometimes as acceptable. Future research should explore whether the distinction between conditions and traits is meaningful in the definition of eugenics and/or approval of genomics-based embryo selection and how that influences clinical practices and policy.

Humans↗
PubMed2002

'Reform' eugenics and the decline of Mendelism.

By the mid-1930s, according to Daniel Kevles, 'mainline eugenics had generally been recognized as a farrago of flawed science.' By then, most geneticists accepted that eugenic sterilization could not rid society of its undesirables. But paradoxically, eugenics still had supporters even among its scientist critics, whom Kevles called 'reform eugenicists'. My opinion is that there was no such sharp turning point in eugenics. Reliance on simple mendelian inheritance faded away, but eugenics continued much as before until after World War II. In this paper, I consider the history of the eugenics movement in terms of its concepts of the inheritance of 'feeble-mindedness' and psychosis as single-gene recessives, and sterilization as a means of control.

Breeding↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Eugenic considerations in the theory and practice of genetic counseling.

Is genetic counseling a form of eugenics? To some extent, the answer depends upon how the terms "eugenics" and "genetic counseling" are defined. This paper reviews the eugenic implications of four models of genetic counseling. The complexities of slapping the eugenic label on genetic counseling are illustrated with three cases drawn from clinical practice. However, even though genetic counseling is not always a eugenic activity, genetic counselors work in a medical/financial setting that has the net eugenic effect of, and profits from, reducing the number of people with genetic disorders.

Eugenics↗
PubMed2004

The meaning of eugenics: reflections on the government of genetic knowledge in the past and the present.

The recent development of molecular genetics has created concern that society may experience a new eugenics. Notions about eugenics and what took place in the 1930s and 1940s are actively shaping questions about which uses of new genetics should be considered illegitimate. Drawing upon a body of historiographical literature on Scandinavian eugenics, this paper argues that the dominant view of eugenics as morally and scientifically illegitimate is not tenable when it comes to the uses of compulsion, political motivation, and scientific acceptability. In spite of a general condemnation of eugenics, health authorities today are trying to prevent individuals with deviant behavior from reproducing or at least from rearing children. This may not be argued with reference to the risk of transmitting defective genes, but rather the risk of producing undesirable social problems. Drawing on a Foucauldian approach, the paper concludes that eugenics and new genetics should be seen as two historically specific forms of biopower.

Eugenics↗
PubMed2002

Duty or dream? Edwin G. Conklin's critique of eugenics and support for American individualism.

This paper assesses ideas about moral and reproductive duty in American eugenics during the early twentieth century. While extreme eugenicists, including Charles Davenport and Paul Popenoe, argued that social leaders and biologists must work to prevent individuals who were "unfit" from reproducing, moderates, especially Edwin G. Conklin, presented a different view. Although he was sympathetic to eugenic goals and participated in eugenic organizations throughout his life, Conklin realized that eugenic ideas rarely could meet strict hereditary measures. Relying on his experience as an embryologist, Conklin instead attempted to balance more extreme eugenic claims - that emphasized the absolute limits posed by heredity - with his own view of "the possibilities of development." Through his critique he argued that most human beings never even begin to approach their hereditary potential; he moderated his own eugenic rhetoric so that it preserved individual opportunity and responsibility, or what has often been labeled the American Dream.

Eugenics↗
PubMed1999

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and the 'new' eugenics.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PID) is often seen as an improvement upon prenatal testing. I argue that PID may exacerbate the eugenic features of prenatal testing and make possible an expanded form of free-market eugenics. The current practice of prenatal testing is eugenic in that its aim is to reduce the numbers of people with genetic disorders. Due to social pressures and eugenic attitudes held by clinical geneticists in most countries, it results in eugenic outcomes even though no state coercion is involved. I argue that technological advances may soon make PID widely accessible. Because abortion is not involved, and multiple embryos are available, PID is radically more effective as a tool of genetic selection. It will also make possible selection on the basis of non-pathological characteristics, leading, potentially, to a full-blown free-market eugenics. For these reasons, I argue that PID should be strictly regulated.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed2000

Eugenics and its relevance to contemporary health care.

Recently there has been a revival of interest in the theory and practice of eugenics by both academics and lay people. The ongoing revolution in biology and the increasing ability to acquire genetic information has led to concerns about genetics being used again for sinister eugenic ends. Although the goals behind traditional eugenics--the minimization of disease and the improvement of human health--remain unchanged, the means by which these goals should be achieved have altered significantly. However, in debates about the impact of human genetic research, eugenics is sometimes viewed as a purely historical phenomenon and its relevance to the current situation is minimized. This article outlines the history of the eugenics movement, describes some eugenic practices, and explores why an appreciation of these historical debates is important for nurses.

Education, Nursing↗
PubMed1997

Eugenics and public health in American history.

Supporters of eugenics, the powerful early 20th-century movement for improving human heredity, often attacked that era's dramatic improvements in public health and medicine for preserving the lives of people they considered hereditarily unfit. Eugenics and public health also battled over whether heredity played a significant role in infectious diseases. However, American public health and eugenics had much in common as well. Eugenic methods often were modeled on the infection control techniques of public health. The goals, values, and concepts of disease of these two movements also often overlapped. This paper sketches some of the key similarities and differences between eugenics and public health in the United States, and it examines how their relationship was shaped by the interaction of science and culture. The results demonstrate that eugenics was not an isolated movement whose significance is confined to the histories of genetics and pseudoscience, but was instead an important and cautionary part of past public health and a general medical history as well.

Eugenics↗
PubMed2002

History of the eugenic movement.

The goal of this review is to introduce the reader to the ideas behind the eugenic movement, its implementation, and its consequences. First, we address the work of prominent 19th century forerunners of eugenics. Second, we discuss the eugenic movement during the first half of the 20th century, and its common and differential characteristics in countries where its expression was more marked, including the US and Nazi Germany. We also discuss the eugenic movement in Sweden, whose history has remained unknown until recently. We analyze the reasoning behind forced sterilization and involuntary euthanasia. Finally, we consider the impact that past eugenics has had on the profession of psychiatry and psychiatric research, particularly genetics. We argue that the history of the 20th century eugenics movement and its leaders still require attention.

Culture↗