Date on which each State inaugurated its eugenical sterilization law (view in Eugenics Archive)

In 1914, eugenicist Harry Laughlin published a Model Eugenical Sterilization Law that proposed to authorize sterilization of the “socially inadequate” – people “maintained wholly or in part by public expense.” The law included sterilization of the “feebleminded, insane, criminalistic, epileptic, inebriate, diseased, blind, deaf, deformed, and dependent” – including “orphans, ne’er-do-wells, tramps, the homeless and paupers.” Laughlin’s publication was the basis for Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act, passed in 1924, which was first tested in the well-known Buck v. Bell case.

It can be debated whether North Carolina’s offer of reparation is enough or appropriate compensation. At one time or another, 33 states had statutes under which more than 60,000 Americans were involuntary sterilized. At $50,000 each, that’s a staggering $3,000,000,000.

Visit the Eugenics Archive for images and information on sterilization laws and eugenicists’ justification for them.

Before we can measure something, intelligence in this case, we must define it. This presents a challenge on its own. How do we define intelligence? Merriam-Webster defines intelligence as:

1. the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations. also: the skilled use of reason
2. the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

How do these definitions relate to our understanding of the word “intelligence”? Do we associate intelligence with someone who does well academically? Consider the 2005 study (Duckworth & Seligman) which found that self-discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. How well then is an IQ test at predicting intelligence as measured by academic success? Indeed, three very well-known figures today, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg, all individuals who no one would deny are pretty “smart” fellows, are all college dropouts (disclaimer: I do not advocate dropping out of school).

Another flaw in IQ testing for measuring intelligence is culture bias. Consider giving a North American IQ test to a teenager in sub Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea. It may not be surprising if the young person doesn’t fare as well as their North American counterpart.  But let’s consider the opposite scenario, where a North American teenager is given an “intelligence” test based on cultural norms in sub Saharan Africa or Papua New Guinea. In these parts of the world, intelligence, which may also be considered an evolved strategy for survival (from the definitions above, think “ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations” or “the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment”), may be more closely linked with protecting your wildstock from predators, hunting and fishing using handmade tools only from what’s available, walking 4 km each day to fetch water, etc. How do you think the North American teenager would fare on this intelligence test?

I’m not going to answer this question; the purpose is to get you thinking.

So what do you think? Let us know. Leave your comments below!

Explore the Eugenics Archive for intelligence testing from the eugenicists’ perspective.

“In the midst of this onslaught against our youth, parents need to be reminded that they have a natural obligation, as essential as providing food and shelter, to instill in their children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.”

Almost 100 years ago, eugenicists were very concerned with race mixing. In 1913, 29 states had laws forbidding mixed-race marriages, and 22 penalized for miscegenation — with fines and/or prison terms. Eugenicists actively supported the strengthening of old laws and the enactment of new ones such as the Virginia Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between a white person and anyone with a trace of blood other than Caucasian. It took until 1967 for these laws to be dissolved.

Anti-miscegenation Laws of the Several States - 1932

Visit the Eugenics Archive and explore the “Race Mixing and Marriage Laws”, “Mate Selection and Counseling”, and “Race and Ethnicity” topics, which are sadly rich with examples of these beliefs.

“Better Babies” contests, originally conceived to promote child welfare and physical development, were the first eugenics contests run at a state fairs (the first held in 1908). By 1920, “Fitter Families” contests were also held at state fairs, where human “stock” was judged alongside cows, pigs, and produce. Contestants completed family trait forms, were examined physically and psychologically, and were graded and awarded prizes as a result. The image below may indicate that there was even a swimsuit competition!

Visit the topics “Better Babies Contests” and “Fitter Families Contests” on the Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement site to explore images of the movement.

"Eye Colors in Man," from The Trait Book, ERO Bulletin No. 6, by Charles B. Davenport, 1912 (Archive Image #1913)

Davenport and other eugenicists oversimplified eye-color inheritance early in the last century, and we have since come to discover that several genes determine eye color.

Recently, a group in the Netherlands has taken our understanding a step further by using high resolution imaging and analysis of nearly 6,000 individuals to identify eye-color using a color spectrum, while previous studies utilized color categories (blue, green, brown). The researchers photographed the subjects’ eyes and identified the color on a spectrum that evaluated hue and saturation. Then they conducted a genome-wide association study and found three new regions on chromosomes 1, 17, and 21 that contribute to eye-color-variation, adding to the seven already known genes. They claim that using their prediction model, 50% of eye-color variation can now be explained. Davenport wouldn’t believe his eyes!

Read more about the study here: http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/05/suspect_has_hazel_eyes_with_h.html

Of course, everyone asks me what I think about National DNA Day, to which I usually reply, “Every day is DNA Day at the DNA Learning Center.”

DNA is business as usual for me and legions of genetic researchers and counselors, but its also becoming business as usual for a lot of average people who are interested in their health or genealogy.

People also often ask me how I feel about all the personal DNA data that is becoming available. To which I usually reply, “I’d be a lot more concerned about losing a credit card or my social security number than having someone look at my DNA.”

An amazing amount of personal DNA information is becoming affordable to the interested person willing to provide a saliva sample by mail. With the tag line “genetics just got personal,” the company called 23 and Me will provide a sophisticated scan of DNA extracted from saliva for less than $500. The company uses research-grade methods to scan more than 600,000 DNA variations to provide risk information about 150 diseases and health-related traits – as well as genetic ancestry. Several other companies will do a similar analysis at a competitive price. So far, only several tens of thousands of people have actually taken these companies up on their offer of a (relatively) cheap gene scan, messing up their business plans.

It may be that people are holding out to get the whole ball of wax. DNA sequencing is becoming so inexpensive – forget the gene scan – it is becoming trivial to determine a person’s entire DNA code, or genome. To date, whole genome sequences have been published for only about 20 humans, but the 1,000 Genomes Project will increase that number 50-fold. We are only a year or two away from the day when an entire human genome sequence can be generated a cost of $1,000 – the price of a middling refrigerator.

Ethicists, who tend to be people who worry a lot, have done a lot of worrying about the consequences of such genetic knowledge. On a personal level, will a gene scan take on the aspect of genetic tarot, predicting the future course of our lives? What will it be like when we have a precise catalog of all the good, bad, and middling genes—and the wherewithal to determine who has which? In the face of such knowledge, will society continue to acquiesce to those who prefer to let nature take its course or will we gravitate toward a prescribed definition of the “right” genetic stuff? Heavy stuff for sure if you or your family is facing a life-threatening disease or if you think hard about the sort of genetically stratified world envisioned in Brave New World, GATTACA, or The Island.

These scenarios aside, the truth is that, for most people, all this DNA data may be more banal than anyone could ever have imagined. (What, no ethical dilemma?) The original human genome sequence was a composite from several anonymous individuals, for which an extensive informed consent protocol had been followed. However, on becoming the first known individual to have his entire genome sequenced, Nobel Laureate James D. Watson promptly released it all online – with the exception of the ApoE gene that estimates his risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Watson’s sequence has been available for public examination since 2007, with no ill effect to him.

About 400 letters of my genetic code has been in an anonymous online database for several years now, and it hasn’t caused me any grief either. We have the same DNA sequences from about 50,000 students stored in the same anonymous database, and they haven’t caused any alarm. At least I haven’t gotten a single phone call from an irate parent in the 10 years since we started putting the sequences online.

That doesn’t mean we should be cavalier about what we do with our personal health information, including certain DNA data. But I think we’re pretty well covered by the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, which prohibits insurance companies or employers from using personal genetic information against us. Besides, there’s just so much DNA data becoming available, no one has time to look at it all – any more than anyone has enough time to keep up with their emails. There’s just too much stuff in cyberspace.

So, I’m not being flippant when I say that I’m not very worried about the proliferation of DNA data. It’s only that there are plenty of other types of data that are more readily available and can hurt us more directly.

That’s why I always carry my wallet in my front pocket.

Though the majority of sterilizations endorsed by eugenicists in the last century were involuntary, this initiative isn’t far from involuntary. An individual suffering from addiction and desperate to maintain it is not capable of weighing the decision to be sterilized. The program also likely eliminates any hope an addict may have for change and improvement. The funding for this program, which is mostly by donation, would be better put to use improving public health and programs that provide rehabilitation assistance to addicts.

The Progress of Eugenical Sterilization

Explore the Archive for reasons for sterilizations, especially the topic “Sterilization Laws.”

Population control was a key aspect of the eugenics movement. Not only did eugenicists encourage population control (both by sterilization as well as abortion) of classes of people they deemed genetically inferior, but they discouraged its application among the intellectual families that were the most likely to practice it, which was known as positive eugenics. Explore the topic “Birth and Population Control” in the Eugenics Archive to discover some of the arguments made by the eugenicists. Margaret Sanger even makes a guest appearance.

New York

In contrast, there was a an effort to prevent hereditary blindness within the eugenics movement. Its proponents collected pedigrees, drafted legislation to prevent marriage of blind individuals, and surveyed ophthalmologists to assess causes of blindness and the cost to society to provide for the blind in specialized homes and schools. Their intent was to eliminate blindness in future generations. However, this was eugenics because affected individuals would not have been allowed to decide for themselves if the trait was undesirable, or what steps to take eliminate it.

Pedigree of a family with blindness

Explore the Eugenics Archive, especially the “Hereditary Disorders” topic, for many examples of how eugenicists viewed inherited diseases.

The Eugenics Archive includes several examples of how African Americans endured dehumanizing scrutiny, categorization, and labeling at the hands of eugenicists and other Americans. Eugenicists believed that race mixing (miscegenation) produced “mongrels” and would lead to the decline of the “higher” white race; some strived to identify and register the race of all individuals to prevent it. “The New Virginia Law to Preserve Racial Integrity” was enacted in 1924 and provided racial definitions — terms like “mulatto”, “quadroon”, “octoroon”, and “sambo” — to identify mixed races and prevent intermarriage. Several other states passed similar laws and many had penalties for miscegenation — fines and/or prison terms of up to 10 years.

Race-mixing pedigree

Chromosome of Man

Eugenicists emphasized the supposed genetic differences among races and ignored the social and economic factors that might account for differences in behavior and customs. They attempted to apply science to the “color problem,” creating pedigrees and visualizing chromosomes to highlight race differences. Eugenicists lost credibility by focusing on race. Humans have very similar DNA and only a handful of genes determine the skin, hair, and eye characteristics that distinguish “races.”

Explore the topics “Race Mixing and Marriage Laws” and “Race and Ethnicity” in the Archive for more on eugenics and race.