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.

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

The similarities are numerous. A poor woman sterilized against her wishes, judged by others to be unfit (just read the public comments on the news sites featuring Tessa’s story), and having children out of wedlock. There is even a slight physical resemblance. Expert testimony during the Buck vs Bell case in 1927 argued that members of the Buck family “belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites.” The Supreme Court concurred “that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.” Whether Tessa’s doctors were thinking the same thing or just made a mistake, they sent the same message.

Tessa Savicki (image from the Boston Herald) and Carrie and Emma Buck

It’s hard to believe that 83 years separate these stories. Read more about Carrie Buck on the Eugenics Archive site.

These definitions stress differences that occupied either end of a continuum of eugenics practice. At one end, Galton’s definition stressed social control, or laws, to control human reproduction. At the other end, Charles Davenport’s stressed an individual’s own control over their reproduction. Social control ultimately embodied “negative eugenics”– limiting mixed race marriages, restricting immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and sterilizing mental and epileptic patients. Self-direction embodied “positive eugenics” – taking personal measures to improve one’s own genetic heritage through mate selection.

Of course, things weren’t that simple. Galton never strongly advocated for negative eugenics, and England never inacted coercive eugenics legislation. To the contrary, Davenport’s Eugenics Record Office successfully lobbied state governments and the U.S. congress to enact restrictive eugenics legislation that culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the premise of compulsory sterilization.

The Holocaust represented the nadir of eugenic practice, but it would be wrong to think eugenics ended with the Nazis. As examples, ethnic cleansings continue to this day in Darfur, and disincentives against large families trump personal reproductive wishes in China. At the same time, fertility drugs and in vitro fertilization extend reproduction to infertile couples, and pre-implantation DNA diagnosis puts the ultimate slant on the notion of self-directing of human evolution.

And somewhere in between is the simple act of picking the healthiest, most virile mate we can find to help us propel our genes into the future. We all lie somewhere on the continuum of eugenics practice.

As someone who only has one foot in this science world, I’ve wondered how those outside it look on at the celebrations and science story telling. Do they see a connection to their lives, or just presume that it doesn’t relate to them? Maybe one of the televised award shows – Academy Awards, Tonys, Emmys, Grammys – is easier to fold into one’s life. Perhaps “I saw that movie, love that song, or watch that show” is more commonplace than “My chromosomes are protected by telomerase”?

I recalled some images in the Eugenics Archive, so there I went, and searched “Darwin” and “Nobel.”

Charles Darwin Signatures

You may know that Darwin’s first cousin, Francis Galton, is the “Father of Eugenics,” and originally coined the term eugenics, defined as “well-born.” In the Archive, I rediscovered Galton’s will, written when he was eight, in which he left Darwin all of his parchment. Maybe young Galton anticipated a groundbreaking publication was in his cousin’s future. Also in the archive is a pair of Darwin “autographs” provided by Emma Darwin.

The “Nobel” search only returned one surprising document. It was a letter written by Harry Laughlin nominating the American Father of Eugenics, Charles Davenport, for a Nobel Prize in Medicine at the end of 1936. He argued, “Doctor Davenport has already received many of the highest honors for basic discoveries in biology. The one remaining honor to which he is undoubtedly entitled for his discoveries, particularly in the application of the rules of organic evolution to human kind, is the Nobel Prize in Medicine.” He went on, “Sir Francis Galton and Doctor Davenport are co-founders of eugenics as a biological and a medical science.” At that time, interest and support for eugenics in America was quickly fading, but Hitler was fully implementing race hygiene strategies. By 1939, the Eugenics Record Office was permanently shut down and Hitler had sterilized 400,000 feebleminded, mentally ill, epileptic, and alcoholic people.

I handled and photographed each and every one of the 2,400+ items in the Archive. The feelings these documents evoked then and now illustrate that science has had a huge impact on me. Laughlin’s misdirected letter was chilling, but when I photographed Darwin’s signatures, I felt a little like a rock-star groupie and jumped in both feet first with the thrill. Rock on Laureates!

In addition to exploring the Archive, visit the Chronicle section in our DNA Interactive site: http://www.dnai.org/e/index.html

Health care is the burning topic these days. Accusations are flying against government initiatives including terms like sterilization, Nazi, and eugenics.

Are these fair characterizations? Decide for yourself by exploring several topic areas in the Eugenics Archive that may sound as if they were discussed at the latest town hall meeting: Birth and Population Control, German/Nazi Eugenics, and Sterilization Laws. Once in the Archive, choose to browse by topic to read the topic essays and view the associated images.