Eugenics

Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference in 1921.

Style over substance
Pseudoscience

Popular pseudosciences

* Alternative medicine
* Creationism
* Racialism
* Pseudopsychology

Random examples

* Taylorism
* I-Doser
* Post-normal science
* Question Evolution
* Natural vision correction
* Crank magnetism
* Nanoflowcell
* Sandiee Peters
* Juraj Mesík (slovensky)

v \- t \- e

“”We must, if we are to be consistent, and if we're to have a real pedigree herd, mate the best of our men with the best of our women as often as possible, and the inferior men with the inferior women as seldom as possible, and bring up only the offspring of the best. And no one but the Rulers must know what is happening, if we are to avoid dissension in our Guardian herd.

—Plato, The Republic[1]:210

“”Nothing ever changes, except man. Your technical accomplishments? Improve a mechanical device and you may double productivity, but improve man and you gain a thousandfold. I am such a man.

—Khan Noonien Singh, Star Trek, "Space Seed"[2]

Eugenics is the purported study of applying the principles of artificial selection and selective breeding through altering human reproduction with the goal of changing the relative frequency of traits in a human population. As Francis Galton put it in a 1909 essay, "the aim of Eugenics is to bring as many influences as can be reasonably employed, to cause the useful classes in the community to contribute more than their proportion to the next generation."[3]:38 It was the most dangerous form of biological determinism in modern history. It has been used to justify mass murder, forced sterilization, and draconian restrictions on immigration, all for causes which seem deranged, absurd, and countrproductive today. If it were applied in the near future, it would result in bungled medical experiments on embryos that would make thalidomide look like a misdemeanor. It was, in fact, an extreme expression of modernism in politics and capitalism in economics, together reaching to finally also commodify the human form. Fortunately, hard work in the second half of the 20th century pushed this incomparable evil out of law codes and government policy into the shadows where it still lurks.

In its disturbing heyday, eugenics was a popular cause for self-important "experts" during the Progressive Era in an appeal to "science".[4]:27[5] Liberal[6]:4 mainline Protestants, whose rank-and-file members later comprised the Second Ku Klux Klan,[7] were wont to promotions of eugenics,[8]:169 opposed by Catholics[9]:41 and conservative evangelicals.[6]:88-89 Eugenics found some support among prominent African-American civil rights activists such as W. E. B. Du Bois, who desired to create an elite class of African-Americans dubbed "The Talented Tenth".[10]:74–75

Most eugenicists believe that the goal of humanity is to achieve 'racial purity' and exterminate (or sterilize) people whom they deem not to be racially pure. This can be through several programs, including abortion, forced sterilization, and mass murder, for the betterment of humanity and a better future for their own children.

## Contents

* 1 Origins
* 2 Uses
* 2.1 Policy
* 2.2 "Fun" with eugenics!
* 3 Nietzschean influences on eugenics
* 4 Nazi Germany
* 4.1 Godwin's Law and the types of eugenics
* 5 Religion and irreligion
* 5.1 Eugenics for Jesus
* 5.2 Eugenics and humanism
* 6 The absurdity of eugenics
* 7 Neo-eugenics
* 7.1 Defining eugenics
* 7.2 Use by far-right and white supremacists
* 8 High IQ sperm bank scams and fads
* 9 Miscegenation
* 10 Supporters of eugenics
* 11 See also
* 12 External links
* 13 Notes
* 14 References

## Origins[edit]

Eugenics was first developed in the 19th century, a misguided outgrowth of an intellectual milieu influenced by the popularity of early evolutionary theory and which included a spate of works on genetic disorders (many of which are incurable horrors), "scientific racism", and the Social Darwinism of the likes of Herbert Spencer. The term "eugenics" was coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, in his 1883 book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development.[11] Galton was responsible for many of the early works of eugenics, including attempts to connect genetics with a most prized trait known as intelligence.[note 1] In order to collect and analyze the data, Galton more or less created the field of statistics. Galton's protégé (and biographer) Karl Pearson also made major advances in statistics.

In the United States, it was the biologist Charles Davenport who laid the groundwork for the establishment of eugenics programs.[13] Eugenics gained traction as it was championed in the nascent Progressive Era of the late 19th century into the early 20th century, finding prominent political proponents in presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. However, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Winston Churchill and Alexander Graham Bell were also fans of eugenics.[14][15][16]

For some reason, there is the trope that Darwin's theory of natural selection based on undirected variations ("chance") resulting in reproductive success (growth in numbers of descendants) has some connection with eugenics. Of course, eugenics is based on the need for purposeful intervention ("intelligent design", so to speak) needed to prevent the supposed natural deterioration (not what we would like, rather than what nature "selects"). One of the important concepts that Darwin realized which made evolution work was that there was no direction 'upward' to evolution. (So that, for example, megafauna like powerful dinosaurs and mammoths could go extinct. That is difficult to understand in any theory of "improvement".) The early 20th century, the era known as the "eclipse of Darwinism", when it was little understood how natural selection could, and did, work in the changes of variation in the world of life, saw the greatest popularity of eugenics.

## Uses[edit]

An ableist illustration. The state of Virginia classified these people as "mental defectives".

### Policy[edit]

Some eugenics-based ideas were implemented both in the United States and in Europe. In the U.S., this strongly influenced immigration policy, as in the Johnson Immigration Act of 1924, which showed a preference for northern Europeans, as they were believed to be somehow superior to Asians and southern and eastern Europeans. The policy was heavily influenced by racist theorists such as Madison Grant, who promoted immigration reform and forced sterilization.

The first U.S. state to implement eugenics was Indiana, in 1907, in which those housed in penal and mental institutions could be forcibly sterilized.[17] The first European country to implement forced sterilization was Denmark, in 1929.[18] California was the third U.S. state to implement eugenics, in 1909. California would go on to become responsible for a third of all of the forced sterilizations conducted in the United States (~20,000 out of ~60,000).

North Carolina had a eugenics policy from 1929 through 1977, and no, no bonus points will be awarded for guessing which race (and gender) it was more likely to apply to. In 2012, a gubernatorial committee proposed a settlement of USD$50,000 to each of the remaining living victims of this policy.[19]

The US Supreme Court gave legal backing to forced sterilization using eugenic ideas in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case. As Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., a eugenics proponent, wrote in a notorious decision, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough."[20] The Buck v. Bell decision encouraged more states to enact eugenics legislation. Twenty-three states had such legislation prior to Buck v. Bell and 32 afterward. Eighteen states never had eugenics legislation.[21]

Ireland had a similar program, with the so-called Magdalene laundries (named after Mary Magdalene from the Bible), which lasted until 1996. While the program in theory was for any mentally ill woman, the definition of "mentally ill" was both vague and easily corruptible enough to be anything from "single mother" to "sexual assault survivor who refused to keep quiet".

### "Fun" with eugenics![edit]

One way eugenics was popularized was through "Better Baby" contests. These contests were sponsored by hospitals to determine the most "fit" baby, who all happened to be WASPs, naturally. This was spun off into "Fitter Family" contests, which would be held at state fairs, carnivals, and churches to allow entire families to compete.[22][23]

## Nietzschean influences on eugenics[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Friedrich Nietzsche

In 1922, Mussolini had modeled himself after Nietzsche's ideas of a "Super man" or 'Übermensch'.[24]

Mussolini along with co-author Giovanni Gentile in their 1927 essay "The Doctrine of Fascism", attempted to define their ideology in a coherent manner. The essay went through a few revisions in the years leading up to World War II. In the 1932 edition, and perhaps earlier, Mussolini obliquely referenced Nietzsche's 'Übermensch' by stating that fascism required a will to power:[25]

“”The doctrine, therefore, must itself not be an exercise in words, but an act of life. Herein lies the pragmatic undertones of fascism, its will to power, its will to exist, its position vis-à-vis the fact of "violence" and its value.
| Original in Italian:

La dottrina, quindi dev'essere essa stessa non un'esercitazione di parole, ma un atto di vita. In ciò le venature pragmatistiche del fascismo, la sua volontà di potenza, il suo volere essere, la sua posizione di fronte al fatto «violenza» e al suo valore.

Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis also cited Nietzsche's work to justify their policies (including eugenics) despite Nietzsche having had condemned German nationalism and antisemitism.[26]:68-69

## Nazi Germany[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Nazi Germany

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf that he approved of the eugenics policy going on in America at the time, to the point where one could say he was inspired by the idea.[27]:270,272,274 When he came to power, Nazi Germany saw the most sweeping application of a eugenics program, which is unsurprising, given the Nazis' maniacal obsession with racial purity, or "racial hygiene" as they called it. The "Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring" (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) was implemented in 1933 within half a year of his rise to power, and resulted in the forced sterilization of up to 400,000 people who had been diagnosed with hereditary mental or physical disabilities. This was praised by eugenicists from the US.[28]

After the outbreak of the war, this policy was carried to another extreme: people bearing hereditary defects were designated as "unfit to live", and the eugenics program moved from sterilization to extermination. Within the scope of "Aktion T4," an estimated 200,000 children and adults were systematically killed in order to avoid having to bear the costs of institutional care.[29] The groups targeted by Aktion T4 were the incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught, and elderly people.[30] Achieving racial purity through eugenics on a grand scale can also be seen as an important motivation behind the Holocaust, which saw the murder of millions of "undesirables", such as Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, and the disabled.

### Godwin's Law and the types of eugenics[edit]

Because of eugenics' association with Nazi Germany, a common bullshitting tactic is to declare some historical figure that endorsed eugenics a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer (see, e.g., Margaret Sanger). This is ahistorical, as not every eugenics proponent supported the measures of Nazi Germany (or were even around to see it). Indeed, if this were the case, that would make Theodore Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge Nazis as well.

Galton divided eugenic practice into "positive" and "negative eugenics". The positive variety consisted of political and economic incentives (such as tax breaks and sex education) for the "fit" to reproduce, and the negative type consisted of disincentives such as birth control or forced sterilization. Dysgenics refers to the deterioration of the human stock — many eugenicists concentrated on "improvement" of the human race by reversing alleged dysgenic forces. There is also a supposed split between "liberal eugenics" and "authoritarian eugenics".[31] Liberal eugenics promotes consensual eugenic practice while authoritarian eugenics promotes state-mandated and enforced programs. Proponents personally emphasized different aspects of eugenics, positive, negative, dysgenic forces, etc. Thus, they often disagreed on matters of policy, much less were they all Nazis.

## Religion and irreligion[edit]

### Eugenics for Jesus[edit]

Site of a Fitter Family contest at a eugenics building in 1920s Kansas

Some Christian churches, particularly the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced the eugenics movement. Some churches hosted 'Fitter Family' contests,[32]:111 and Methodist Bishops endorsed one of the first eugenics books circulated to the US churches, The Transmission of Life.[33][34] The professor of Christian ethics and founder of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, Rev. Harry F. War, writing in Eugenics, the magazine of the American Eugenic Society, said that eugenics and Christianity were both compatible because both pursued the “challenge of removing the causes that produce the weak.”[33][35]

The very first experiment in positive eugenics came about at the hands of the utopian Christian communitarian sect, the Oneida Community. It was done through selective breeding, and termed "stirpiculture" by its leader and inventor John Humphrey Noyes (the term "eugenics" had yet to be coined). This lasted from 1869-1879, with the birth of 58 children (some "unfit" accidental conceptions occurred too).[36]

However, other Christian churches were strongly opposed to eugenics, particularly the Catholic Church and conservative Protestants. Catholics disliked eugenic laws that allowed for sterilization; Protestants viewed eugenics as a threat to a reliance on God to cure social ills.[37]:109,113

### Eugenics and humanism[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Humanism

Francis Galton.

The key figure in the birth of eugenics was Thomas Robert Malthus, a Protestant vicar. Malthus’s “Essay on the Principle of Population” (originally published in 1798, but constantly revised by Malthus during his lifetime) was, and continues to be, fundamental in the field. Writing before the full onslaught of the industrial revolution and its impact upon agricultural production, Malthus argued that in any population the rate at which humans reproduce will grow faster than the rate of food production until there is a population crash, as humans are culled by hunger and disease. The only way to avoid this inevitable disaster was active intervention to limit population sizes. These ideas enjoyed a new lease of life with the development of evolutionary theory. Charles Darwin publicly acknowledged the debt he owed to Malthus in the development of his own theory of natural selection.

While Darwin’s theories are not eugenicist themselves, it was a combination of evolutionary theory and Malthus’s ideas about population control that gave rise to eugenics, a discipline which is intimately connected with Darwin’s family, primarily through Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, who became the acknowledged founder of the eugenics movement. While his cousin’s anti-clerical feelings are still debated, there can be no doubt at all about Galton’s credentials as a proto-humanist. He was openly irreligious in an age when it was unpopular and even dangerous. He saw eugenics – a term he derived from the Greek for good (eu or ευ) and born (-genes or -γένεσ) – as a secular alternative to religion. Drawing upon the new science of statistics, to which he made notable contributions, he set out to encourage the procreation of eugenic, “well-born”, individuals and to discourage, or actively prevent, the “dysgenic” populations from breeding at all.

“”A major factor in the discrediting of mainline eugenics was the development of Gregor Mendel's initial work by geneticists in the 1930s. A key aspect of this development was the discovery of recessive genes and the consequent recognition that breeding out undesirable characteristics in large, fluid human populations would be very difficult, if not impossible. There was also a growing appreciation of the influence of environment, which ensured that many of the various characteristics dumped into the “feeble-minded” box could no longer be regarded as simply the result of heredity. All this gave rise to a movement known as “reform” eugenics, which stressed personal choice in procreation rather than coercion. In this new form, it attracted a number of other serious scientists and rationalists.

It would be incorrect to suggest that mainline eugenics completely disappeared from the rationalist community after the 1930s. For example, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA and an RPA [Rationalist Press Association] Associate Member, was both virulently anti-religion and pro-mainline eugenics. At one point, he suggested enforced sterilization via the use of doctored food, and as late as the 1960s he was advocating that couples should apply for a breeding license if they wanted to procreate.

—John Appleby[38]

## The absurdity of eugenics[edit]

"Criminal brains" exhibit by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Diseases.

Whilst eugenics depends, in theory, on the perfectly valid science of genetics and appeals to the practice of animal husbandry, historically, its application has always been far from scientific. Whereas it is (relatively) easy to, for example, breed cattle for higher milk yield, defining what is meant by a "better" human being becomes a very difficult question. At this point, eugenics stops being scientific and starts being normative and political, and a rather nasty type of politics at that. Ethical guidelines for human experimentation can be traced back to the Food and Drug Administration in 1906,[39] but became widespread in 1947 after the Nuremberg trials and the subsequent development of the Nuremberg Code.

Eugenics drew heavily from various racist and racialist tracts of its heyday. To say nothing of the fact that any form of experimentation, well, let's just say that ethics boards exist for a reason.

The most obvious flaw with the application of eugenics is that its proponents have tended to conflate phenotypical (read: superficial) traits with genotypical traits. Any species that looks fit on the outside may carry recessive traits which don't exhibit themselves but which will be passed on, and vice versa. The development of the field of epigenetics, i.e. heritable environmental factors in genetic expression that occur without change to underlying DNA structures, poses further problems for eugenics.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins claimed in a tweet that:

“”It's one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It's quite another to conclude that it wouldn't work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn't it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."[40]

It may be true that a selective breeding plan to encourage certain physical traits in humans could achieve some results that plant\- and animal-breeders (who were without specific knowledge of the genes they were selecting in and out) have achieved over the centuries. But the odds are that the purebred humans with distinguishing features would be less healthy than the offspring of unconstrained mating would be, for the same reason that kennel-club purebred dogs are often less healthy than mutts. This concept of "purity" is flawed in that it gives rise to many of the same problems as inbreeding&nbsp— a loss of genetic biodiversity can in fact lead to increased susceptibility to a common concentrated weakness. A classic example of concentration is haemophilia, which became the plague of the European royal families. (Ironically, a common element in eugenicist works was that "inferior races" and or "race mixing" would produce an overall correlation with genetic disorders.) Furthermore, changes in the environment can cause traits that were once advantageous to become liabilities virtually overnight. An example of this occurred in deer populations. For millions of years, natural selection favored male deer with large antlers as fitter specimens, as they could use those antlers to protect themselves and to fight other males for access to females. However, upon the rise of sport hunting, bucks with large antlers suddenly found themselves targeted specifically because of those antlers, as they made great trophies with which to establish the human hunter's prowess. The size of antlers among deer populations plunged quickly.

Among humans, being a carrier for sickle-cell, thalassemia or glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase genes would normally result in fewer surviving offspring and eventually cause the genes to die off… except that being a single-gene carrier grants resistance to malaria, the deadliest disease in human history. Thus having the gene is overall beneficial in terms of biological fitness in environments where malaria is prevalent but disadvantageous elsewhere. The existence of these recessive genes that are beneficial with one copy and disadvantageous with two copies implies that there might be others yet to be discovered, perhaps with more subtle benefits and disadvantages.

The extreme reductionism of eugenics often crossed into what is now comical territory. Nearly every social behavior, including things such as "pauperism" and the vaguely-defined "feeble-mindedness", could be traced back to a single genetic disorder according to eugenicists, while we now know that the bulk of the 19th-century disorders were the result of poor sanitation, nutrition, and healthcare.[note 2] Many works of eugenics recall the similar trend evident in phrenology (indeed, there was some overlap between eugenics and phrenology).[41]

In short, eugenics could become a legitimate science… if virtually everything about how it has been applied were changed. Any "Übermensch" would need the widest possible selection of "superior" genes, meaning that any resulting super-human would be very much mixed race, something most self-proclaimed eugenicists would abhor. It's also important to remember that as humans are a social species, the most productive society would be one where the humans all have a strong sense of empathy, something that may have a genetic component[42] and is probably lacking in anyone who would openly advocate for the forcible sterilization and/or murder of others.

While eugenics gained widespread support in the early 20th century in a number of countries (even within the scientific community), there was also strong opposition during this period.[43]

* The biologist Raymond Pearl (1879–1940), once a supporter of the eugenics movement, turned against it in the late 1920s.[44]
* G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936) who went on to pen the essay Eugenics and Other Evils during the height of eugenics' popularity in Britain during the early 20th century.[45]
* The geneticist Lancelot Hogben (1894–1975) argued that eugenics relied on a false dichotomy of "nature vs. nurture" and that it infected science with political value judgments.[46] William Beveridge (the director of the London School of Economics from 1919-1937) asked Hogben to promote eugenics on campus; Hogben gave Beveridge the finger and prevented any of his eugenic ideas from being taken seriously in the formation of the British welfare state.[47]
* Clarence Darrow (1857–1938) famously denounced eugenics as a "cult."[48]
* The Carnegie Institute, which initially funded the Eugenics Record Office, withdrew its funding after a review of its research, leading to its closing in 1939 (before the Holocaust).[49]

## Neo-eugenics[edit]

Nicholas Agar (1965–) is considered the founder of liberal eugenics.

There has been a modern revival of eugenics over the past two decades under the tendentious terms "liberal eugenics",[31] "new eugenics",[50] "neo-eugenics",[51][52] "moderate eugenics",[53] "private eugenics",[54] and euphemisms such as "genetic enhancement"[55] and "procreative beneficence".[56] Supporters of so-called liberal eugenics often attempt to distinguish their form of eugenics to traditional eugenics, for example, arguing that the latter was essentially a public concern, with eugenic policies imposed by governments, while liberal eugenics "is a private concern: parental choice over their offspring’s characteristics."[57] Liberal eugenicists usually include preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), prenatal screening tests, carrier testing, polygenic embryo screening (PES), and antenatal genome editing as forms of "liberal eugenics". For example, some companies have recently begun to sell a new service to patients considering in vitro fertilization: embryo selection based on polygenic scores.[58] Critics of these argue they are tools of discrimination and ableism as well as open to misuse. In 2021, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics published a statement expressing concern over the offering of PES services for psychiatric conditions and concluded "polygenic embryo screening raises many ethical, legal, and social issues that can potentially lead to harm".[59] Supporters of liberal eugenics tend to highlight technologies that can screen against Tay-Sachs Disease, an incurable disorder that leads to fatality at around age five. However, this argument overlooks issues of unequal access to these technologies which would arguably "exacerbate existing disparities in health owing to factors such as economic inequality".[58] Furthermore, disability rights activists tend to argue against prenatal screening tests for genetic disorders such as Down syndrome.[60][61] The systematic screening of fetuses for Down syndrome already takes place in many countries and this has led to the vast majority of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome being aborted, although the number of abortions differ by country as high as 99% in Iceland, 90% in the UK and 67% in the US.[62][63][64] The high number of aborted fetuses has led some disability rights groups to organize campaigns against prenatal screening. For example, the “Don’t Screen Us Out” campaign.[65] The increasingly widespread termination of fetuses with Down syndrome has been argued to fit some definitions of genocide.[66]

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and polygenic embryo screening (PES) can allow parents to estimate the presence of not only genetic and psychiatric disorders[67] (although screening for some psychiatric disorders is unlikely to be feasible due to their highly polygenic nature) but estimates of IQ, skin colour, eye colour, and height. Subsequently these aspects of PGD/PES have been criticised for eugenics concerns because of a slippery slope towards "designer babies". Katie Hasson, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society has noted, "These directly echo eugenic efforts… We are talking about deciding who should be born based on 'good' and 'bad' genes."[68] Another major concern is polygenic embryo screening is currently expensive which has led to concerns about perpetuating wealth inequalities.[69] Furthermore, the application of PES to mental illnesses has been described as recalling "the ugly history of early 20th century eugenics"[67] contrary to its supporters trying to distinguish "liberal eugenics" to traditional eugenics such as under the Nazis. CRISPR-Cas 9 gene editing may also controversially become a way of genetic therapy or "enhancement" in the future. The He Jiankui affair regarding the actual editing of two female human embryos in China led, however, to widespread outcry and a de facto moratorium on the practice. A survey conducted by the Mayo Clinic in the Midwestern United States in 2017 saw that most of the participants had negative views of "designer babies" by genetic editing.[70] In 2024, a public survey in the US showed only a third of respondents approved of using reproductive technology to predict traits unrelated to disease.[71] However, the same study showed an overall 78% approval among respondents for screening embryos for physical health conditions including heart disease.[72]

PGD and PES have both been criticised on medical grounds. Each require an intervention of embryo biopsy and cryopreservation but these procedures may cause harm[73] such an increase in the "prevalence of preterm birth and pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders".[74] A recent study on the impact of cryopreservation suggested that frozen-thawed embryo transfer is associated with an increased risk of cancer in the offspring.[75] Ethical issues include the discarding of surplus embryos[76] and the fact these technologies arguably lead to stigmatization and discrimination of the disabled.[67]

Supporters of liberal eugenics claim that they oppose coercive or involuntary eugenics, unlike traditional eugenics: "old eugenics was involuntary. The state used all the coercive means at its disposal to achieve eugenic objectives, from laws to forced sterilisations. Liberal eugenics, on the other hand, is deemed to be voluntary."[77] Critics, however, point out that there are sometimes pressures surrounding "choice" in PGD and prenatal screening tests and therefore choices are not being freely made to abort fetuses diagnosed with genetic disorders because of cultural attitudes toward disability. Thomas and Rothman (2016) argued that by "even making screening available for Down syndrome and other genetic conditions is already, by definition, suggesting that they are not valued reproductive outcomes."[78] Similarly, in Iceland where almost 100% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted, the geneticist Kari Stefansson remarked: "We try to do as neutral counselling as possible, but some people would say that just offering the test is pointing you towards a certain direction."[79] Some disability rights activists have gone further to argue coercion is involved when inaccurate and overly negative information about certain non-fatal genetic disorders is provided to a woman when deciding whether to terminate her pregnancy.[80] A survey of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellows and Junior Fellows, conducted in 2007-2008 found that 40% of respondents felt their residency training about the screening for Down syndrome "was less than adequate."[81] In 2020, it was reported in the UK that expectant parents for unborn babies diagnosed with Down syndrome were "routinely given outdated advice and encouraged to have a termination."[82]

Another criticism of liberal eugenics is based on the subjective disagreements about what traits are considered to be "positive" and "negative" as well as the difficulty in deciding what is the "best" life.[83] While few people would disagree that a fatal or life-threatening genetic disorder is a negative (not least because of increased risk of fetuses with these conditions dying at stillbirth and the short life-spans for babies born with disorders such as Tay-Sachs and Edwards syndrome), when it comes to non-fatal genetic disorders, there are different perspectives and disability rights activists argue disabilities such as Down syndrome should be understood as a "legitimate, respectable form of human variation".[84] The National Down Syndrome Society for example, has pointed out that "People with Down syndrome attend school, work, participate in decisions that affect them, and contribute to society" and notes that the life expectancy for people with Down syndrome is on average 60 years of age.[85] Related to this criticism is the harmful effects liberal eugenics is likely to have on existing people with non-fatal disabilities since it conveys the message their lives are not worthy or are a net-negative. Disability theorists have argued that the screening of embryos or fetuses for certain genetic disorders which result in a high percentage of abortions sends a negative message – "It is better not to exist than to have a disability".[86]

A final criticism of liberal eugenics is the slippery slope to an older style of coercive and racist eugenics.[87][88] In recent years, the alt-right has adopted eugenics, but many white nationalists have tried to disguise their racist eugenic policies through so-called liberal eugenics to make them seem more palatable to the ordinary public (see below). Donald Trump is apparently a eugenicist.[89] He once told a group of all white supporters that they have "good genes".[90] The claim was later dog whistled in an American Eagle advertising campaign during Trump's second term, featuring white Republican actor Sydney Sweeney and the slogan, "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans".[91][92]

### Defining eugenics[edit]

A poster by the American Eugenics Society, with rhetoric not dissimilar from that used by eugenics apologists today.

Supporters of liberal eugenics use very broad behaviour or practices to pass as eugenics.[93] This is presumably done in an attempt to try to normalise eugenics by arguing "it is hard to ﬁnd people who don’t endorse any form of eugenics".[94] This has been criticised by Wilson (2021) who noted that a definition of eugenics, must acknowledge "the distinction between better and worse traits" (or positive/desired and negative/undesired traits) in reproduction or it is too far removed from the traditional understanding of eugenics, for example, he criticises a (2018) definition of eugenics as "any attempt to harness the power of reproduction to produce people with traits that allow them to thrive" for being a half-truth which excludes the undesired or negative traits.[95] Thomas and Rothman (2016), in contrast, more reasonably define eugenics as "practices and policies designed to promote the reproduction of people with desired attributes—and, thus, avert the reproduction of people with undesired attributes."[78] The aim of traditional eugenicists in the 19th and 20th centuries was to encourage people with "desirable" traits to reproduce ("positive eugenics") and discourage those with "undesirable" traits from reproducing ("negative eugenics").[96] For this reason, Garland-Thompson (2012) described "eugenic logic" as any practice aiming to "eliminate disability and, by extension, disabled people from the world".[97] Liberal eugenicists often exclude the latter aspect of eugenics from their definitions, e.g., Veit et al (2021) cherry-picked their definition of eugenics from a 2016 book The Ethics of the New Eugenics as the "strategies or decisions aimed at aﬀecting, in a manner which is considered to be positive, the genetic heritage of a child, a community, or humanity in general".[94] The most obvious reason why liberal eugenicists exclude "negative eugenics" from their definition of eugenics is the historical baggage attached to negative eugenics, such as old sterilization laws, segregation and Nazi Germany. Cavaliere (2018) noted that definitions by liberal eugenicists strive "for neutrality in that it tries not to presuppose any explicit negative or implicit built-in value-judgment."[98]

Nicholas Agar's paper "Liberal Eugenics"[99] and book Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement[31] also avoid "negative eugenics" in their definition; Agar states in the book preface, "The eugenics defended here differs in being primarily concerned with the protection of reproductive freedom".[31]:vii Agar emphases the liberal in liberal eugenics and goes on to claim this new type of eugenics does not want to restrict human reproductive freedom and instead "adds to the choice of your children's characteristics." Agar, at great length, tried to distance liberal eugenics from its "authoritarian predecessor" and distinguishes between traditional eugenics and liberal eugenics by arguing the latter is individual and private (without state or government interference and not at the population level) and is optional or voluntary. These arguments have been criticised by disability rights activists and some bioethicists.[96][100][101][102] In his book, Agar defends prenatal screening and preimplantation genetic diagnosis[31]:27 as well as uncritically quotes Nick Bostrom on the "elimination" of Down syndrome.[31]:141 Disability rights activists argue prenatal diagnosis is morally problematic for disorders such as Down syndrome because it results in selective abortion, which expresses negative or discriminatory attitudes not only about the genetic disorder but also about those who have it: "a liberal eugenic mentality will reinforce the image of the disabled person as an individual to be excluded from society, thereby causing harm to the child."[103] In disability rights and bioethics literature, the expressionist objection "refers to the notion that using reproductive (genetic) technologies to prevent the birth of future would-be disabled people contain, and express, a negative valuation of life with disability."[104][105] This argument as an ethical concern against prenatal testing for genetic disorders is still debated.[105]

The geneticist Adam Rutherford published Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics in 2022 and criticised polygenic embryo screening for non-diseases. On the other hand, Rutherford favours the potential for PES and genetic therapy to eradicate specific life-threatening diseases such as cystic fibrosis.[106][107] Rutherford narrowly defined eugenics as only "top-down, state-imposed sanctioning of reproductive rights" and in an interview said "I’m pretty clear about this: routinely screening pregnancies for conditions such as Down’s syndrome, and offering women the choice of terminating that pregnancy, doesn’t count as eugenics."[108] This has led to criticism from disability rights activists including Down syndrome rights activists. In his book, Rutherford again said he does not think prenatal screening for Down syndrome is eugenics.[106]:189[109] Despite this, he has elsewhere commented that "Down’s[sic] syndrome has effectively dropped to zero in those countries [Iceland and Denmark].[108] That does indeed begin to look like a eugenics project."[108] However, there are positive reviews.[110][111][112]

Whether prenatal screening tests for fatal or life-threatening genetic disorders are actually eugenics is less-clear-cut than disorders that are not fatal or life-threatening such as Down syndrome; Dive and Newson (2022) in an article in Journal of Medical Ethics[113] argue that screening "for conditions that are very severe and/or life limiting is less likely to be subject to concerns related to eugenics." The reason for this is that fetuses diagnosed with fatal or life-threatening genetic disorders have an increased risk of dying in utero as well as pose a risk to the mother's health during pregnancy, and babies born with these conditions have low life-spans.For example, 70% of pregnancies diagnosed with Trisomy 18 (Edwards' syndrome) from screening tests end in miscarriage or stillbirth,[114] and fewer than 10% of babies with Trisomy 18 live beyond 1 year.[115] Arguably a pregnant woman who aborts their fetus to prevent a stillbirth or to prevent complications to their own health is not doing so for eugenic reasons. When it comes to abortion, this distinction between fatal/life-threatening genetic disorders and non-fatal/non-life-threatening disorders is seldom made by liberal eugenicists. Fleischman (2023) failed to make this distinction and claimed that prenatal screening tests for all diseases and syndromes is eugenics, which is questionable to say the least.[93]

### Use by far-right and white supremacists[edit]

Numerous far-right activists have adopted so-called liberal eugenics as a way to subtly promote more extreme forms of eugenics and to relabel their nasty views.

## High IQ sperm bank scams and fads[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Scam

Nowadays, forced sterilization and killing people based on IQ tests is frowned upon. And so, the emphasis is more on getting clever people to have more children, and thanks to artificial insemination one no longer needs to get Nobel laureates to directly impregnate lots of women.

One of the most famous sperm banks was Robert K. Graham's Repository for Germinal Choice in California, active from 1980 to 1999, and apparently responsible for 215 babies. Graham pondered various eugenic methods, such as paying college graduates to have children. After initially considering West Point graduates as the ideal fathers, Graham decided to collect sperm from Nobel Prize winners, elite athletes, and people with incredibly high IQs. Initially, Graham tried recruiting from the two dozen Nobelists who lived in California at the time, but only three mad donation. All the donors were anonymous, except for racist physicist William Shockley, who actually did win a Nobel Prize. All of the donors and recipients were (or at least claimed to be) white, married and heterosexual, and despite protestations to the contrary, the sperm bank was in fact racist.[116][117]:7,11 After publicity about the bank, it scared many men away, including Shockley who only made a single donation before publicity.[118] It was rumored that Jonas Salk, the developer of the first effective polio vaccine made donations, but this was based on a donor who made completely fabricated answers, roughly fitting Salk's profile, to a questionnaire. The bank apparently took men at their word about their IQ scores![119] Curiously, there was no restriction on the women who purchased the sperm — they could be of any intelligence.[note 3] Also there was apparently little or no screening for mental health issues, something a proper eugenics program would be extremely interested in accounting for. Author David Plotz wrote a book, The Genius Factory, which followed up on some of the births, and found that the clinic wasn't any worse than other sperm banks of the time, which often offered no screening even for the most serious genetic conditions (at least Graham had some basic screening). Nick Isel (Tom Legare),[120] a child of the program, wrote about how he got in contact with his father, who turned out to have exaggerated his credentials as a published author (self-published); his biological father's family had a history of mental illness, and the father wasn't exactly a success in life, later being struck off as a doctor and jailed for spousal rape. This shows the difficulty in selecting a model sperm donor, although it's not clear how much of that was inheritable.[121][122][123][117]

Graham's sperm bank model has influenced modern sperm banks today,[117]:173 which allow couples to have greater choice in determining their sperm donors, and seek "really high quality guys" as donors.

## Miscegenation[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Miscegenation

Equally pernicious from the other side of the horseshoe, Australian eugenicist A. O. Neville's plan to racially assimilate the Aborigines.

Those who support eugenics often believe that miscegenation is dysgenic due to the genetic differences between human races, often relying on "scientific racism" (racialism).[14] They often claim that race-mixing produces less fit offspring who aren't adapted to any environment and are thus weaker than their single-race counterparts. They claim that mixed-race people are more prone to health problems and birth defects due to outbreeding.[14] They claim that the lower intelligence in developing countries, and the mental health of mixed-race Americans is not due to environment or upbringing, but rather genetics.

Some racialists believe that race-mixing is "eugenic" relative to the non-white race, and improves the non-white race. This is where the idea of racial whitening came about during colonial times in South America. However, this idea maintains that mixed-race people are inferior to their white parent, but better than their non-white parent. This belief was promoted by A. O. Neville in Australia in the form of promoting mixed-race marriages, and resulted in the kidnapping of children from Aboriginal families, the resultant Stolen Generations.[124]

The view of miscegenation largely varies, with some viewing mixed-race people as inferior to everyone else, while others view them as better than non-whites due to their white ancestry.

## Supporters of eugenics[edit]

* Anders Behring Breivik
* Frederick Brennan
* Winston Churchill
* Ronald Fisher
* Francis Galton
* Robert Gayre
* Madison Grant
* Christopher Langan
* Charles Lindbergh
* Pentti Linkola
* Gregory Cochran[125]
* Richard Lynn
* James Randi
* Bertrand Russell[126]
* Margaret Sanger? Even Planned Parenthood, the organization she founded, has had internal disputes about whether she supported eugenics.[127]
* Herbert Spencer
* Marie Stopes
* The Urantia Book
* Marian Van Court
* Woodrow Wilson
* Toby Young

## See also[edit]

* Castration
* Genetic modification
* Hitler and evolution
* Miscegenation
* Useless eaters
* Charles Darwin#Was Darwin racist?

## External links[edit]

* Image archive on the American Eugenics Movement and the archive of criticisms of eugenics
* Bibliography of works related to eugenics
* Eugenics and bioethics project, Georgetown University
* Eugenics and the German Medical Establishment, Humanitas International
* David Micklos and Elof Carlson. Engineering American Society: The Lesson of Eugenics. Nature Reviews, vol. 1, Dec. 2000.
* Paul A. Lombardo. Disability, Eugenics, and the Culture War. Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy.
* Diane B. Paul and Hamish G. Spencer. The Hidden Science of Eugenics. Nature, 374, 302-304 (23 March 1995)
* Kenneth L. Garver and Bettylee Garver. The Human Genome Project and Eugenic Concerns. American Journal of Public Health. 54: 148-158, 1994
* Barron H. Lerner. The Black Stork: Eugenics and the death of “defective” babies in American medicine and motion pictures since 1915. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996; 335: 527.
* Rob Baker. Top Ten Unlikely and Surprising Eugenicists, Flashbak.com, (18 March 2015)
* Tomorrow's Children, a 1934 anti-eugenics flick

## Notes[edit]

1. ↑ All of Galton's writing on eugenics is archived.[12]
2. ↑ Thank whatever gods ye have thou wast born after we hath discovered the polio vaccine, antibiotics, iodine fortification, and anthelmintics (deworming drugs). Especially anthelmintics.
3. ↑ This makes sense from Graham's sexist perspective; there's little to no limit to the sperm, so if a woman decides to get pregnant, even if she herself would be 'ineligible' for egg donation, it would be "better" if she received the "smart" sperm than from some rando at a bar.

## References[edit]

1. ↑ The Republic by Plato, translated by Desmond Lee (1987) Penguin Books. 2nd edition.
2. ↑ Star Trek: Space Seed: Quotes IMDb.
3. ↑ Essays in Eugenics by Francis Galton (1909) The Eugenics Education Society.
4. ↑ A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era by Paul A. Lombardo (2011) Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253222699.
5. ↑ U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective by Steven A. Farber (2008) Zebrafish 5:243-245. doi:10.1089/zeb.2008.0576.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement by Christine Rosen (2004) Oxford University Press. ISBN 019515679X.
7. ↑ "The Ku Klux Klan, Labor, And The White Working Class During The 1920s" by Thomas R. Pegram (2018) The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 17(2): 373-396. doi:10.1017/S1537781417000871.
8. ↑ Eugenics and Protestant Social Reform: Hereditary Science and Religion in America, 1860-1940 by Dennis L. Durst (2017) ‎ Pickwick Publications. ISBN 1532605773.
9. ↑ Contested Reproduction: Genetic Technologies, Religion, and Public Debate by John H. Evans (2010) University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226222659.
10. ↑ "'Quality, Not Mere Quantity, Counts': Black Eugenics and the NAACP Baby Contests" by Gregory Michael Dorr & Angela Logan (2011) In: A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era, edited by Paul A. Lombardo. pp. 68-94.
11. ↑ Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development by Francis Galton (1883) Macmillan.
12. ↑ galton.org
13. ↑ People and Discoveries: Charles Davenport (1998) PBS
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Eugenic Laws Against Race Mixing by Paul Lombardo (2002) Eugenics Archive, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
15. ↑ Brief History of American and European Eugenics Movements, excerpts from A History of the American Eugenics Movement by Barry Mehler (1988) University of Illinois, Ph.D. Thesis.
16. ↑ Churchill and Eugenics by Martin Gilbert (May 31, 2009) International Churchill Society.
17. ↑ Indiana Eugenics: History & Legacy, 1907-2007 Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis (archived from September 28, 2018).
18. ↑ Something Rotten in the State of Denmark: Eugenics and the Ascent of the Welfare State by Bent Sigurd Hansen (2004). In: Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, edited by Gunnar Broberg & Nils Roll-Hansen. ISBN 0870134132. Michigan State Univ Press. ISBN 0870134132. pp. 9-76.
19. ↑ North Carolina Set To Compensate Forced Sterilization Victims by Scott Neuman (July 25, 20135:20 PM ET) NPR.
20. ↑ Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) Findlaw.
21. ↑ Sterilized in the Name of Public Health: Race, Immigration, and Reproductive Control in Modern California by Alexandra Minna Stern (2005) American Journal of Public Health 95(7):1128–1138. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608. (Georgia was the 32nd and final state to implement a sterilization law.)
22. ↑ Photography Changes Social and Cultural Hierarchies by Carol Squiers (c. 2010) click! (archived from 7 Jul 2013 13:10:23 UTC).
23. ↑ Repentance for support of eugenics (2008, 2012) General Board of Church & Society of the Methodist Church.
24. ↑ "Model of masculinity: Benito Mussolini, the 'new Italian' of the Fascist era" by Gigliola Gori (1999) International Journal of the History of Sport 4:27–61.
25. ↑ Mussolini: Dottrina politica e sociale del fascismo by [Benito Mussolini] [1932] Gioventù fascista.
26. ↑ Nietzsche: The Key Concepts by Peter R. Sedgewick (2009) Routledge. ISBN 041526376X.
27. ↑ War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black (2003) Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 1568582587.
28. ↑ The Biological State: Nazi Racial Hygiene, 1933-1939 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
29. ↑ Final Solutions: Murderous Racial Hygiene, 1939-1945 US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
30. ↑ T4 Program by Michael Berenbaum Encyclopedia Brittanica.
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement  by Nicholas Agar (2004) Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1405123907.
32. ↑ Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement by Christine Rosen (2004) Oxford University Press. ISBN 019515679X.
33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Repentance for Support of Eugenics: 2016 Book of Resolutions, #3184 (2016) United Methodist Church (archived from February 5, 2018).
34. ↑ The Transmission of Life: Counsels on the Nature and Hygiene of the Masculine Function by George Henry Napheys (1871) J. Fergus & Co. Note: This was cited incorrectly by the United Methodist Church reference.
35. ↑ "Is Christian Morality Harmful, Over Charitable to the Un-fit" by four religious leaders. The quote is from Harry F. Ward (1928) Eugenics 1:20.
36. ↑ "Stirpiculture: Science-Guided Human Propagation and the Oneida Community" by Alexandra Prince (2017) Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 52(1):76-99. doi:10.1111/zygo.12319.
37. ↑ Sex, Race, and Science: Eugenics in the Deep South by Edward J. Larson (1996) The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 9780801855115.
38. ↑ Rationalism's dirty secret by John Appleby (23rd December 2010) New Humanist.
39. ↑ See the Wikipedia article on Human subject research legislation in the United States.
40. ↑ It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology. by Richard Dawkins (11:26 PM - 15 Feb 2020) Twitter (archived from 16 Feb 2020 07:48:11 UTC).
41. ↑ VL Hilts. Obeying the laws of hereditary descent: phrenological views on inheritance and eugenics by V. L. Hilts (1982) Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 18(1):62-77. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(198201)18:1<62::aid-jhbs2300180107>3.0.co;2-s.
42. ↑ Genome-wide analyses of self-reported empathy: correlations with autism, schizophrenia, and anorexia nervosa by Varun Warrier et al. (2018) Transl. Psychiatry 8:35. doi:10.1038/s41398-017-0082-6.
43. ↑ GE Allen. Eugenics and modern biology: critiques of eugenics, 1910-1945 by Garland E. Allen (2011) Annals of Human Genetics 75(3):314-25. doi:10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00649.x.
44. ↑ Raymond Pearl's "Mingled Mess" by Melissa Hendricks (April 2006) Johns Hopkins Magazine.
45. ↑ Eugenics and Other Evils by G. K. Chesterton (1922) Cassell and Company.
46. ↑ Lancelot Hogben, 1895-1975 by Sahotra Sarkar (1996) Genetics, 142(3):655-660. doi:10.1093/genetics/142.3.655.
47. ↑ Looking Back on Lancelot's Laughter by James Tabery (c. 2022) Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh.
48. ↑ "The Eugenics Cult" by Clarence Darrow (2005). In: Closing Arguments: Clarence Darrow on Religion, Law, and Society, edited by S. T. Joshi. Ohio University Press. ISBN 0821416324. pp. 197-212l. (Reprinted in Thoughts in a Haystack. Originally appearing The American Mercury (1926)
49. ↑ Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States: New York by Lutz Kaelber (2012) University of Vermont.
50. ↑ The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies by Judith Daar (2017) Yale University Press. ISBN 030013715X.
51. ↑ The future of neo-eugenics. Now that many people approve the elimination of certain genetically defective fetuses, is society closer to screening all fetuses for all known mutations? by Armand Marie Leroi (2006) EMBO Rep. 7(12):1184–1187. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400860.
52. ↑ A brave new world of designer babies? by Sonia M. Suter (2007) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 22:897–960.
53. ↑ "Moderate eugenics and human enhancement" by Michael J. Selgelid (2014) Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17:3-12. doi:10.1007/s11019-013-9485-1.
54. ↑ "Private and Public Eugenics: Genetic Testing and Screening in India" by J. A. Gupta (2007) Bioethical Inquiry 4:217–228. doi:10.1007/s11673-007-9059-0.
55. ↑ Can ‘eugenics’ be defended? by Walter Veit et al. (2021) Monash Bioethics Review 39:60–67. doi:10.1007/s40592-021-00129-1.
56. ↑ "Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children" by J. Savulescu (2001) Bioethics (5-6):413–426. doi:10.1111/1467-8519.00251.
57. ↑ From Public Eugenics to Private Eugenics: What Does the Future Hold? by Vera Lúcia Raposo (2022) JBRA Assist. Reprod. 26(4):666–674. doi:10.5935/1518-0557.20220032.
58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 "Problems with Using Polygenic Scores to Select Embryos" by Patrick Turley et al. (2021) N. Engl. J. Med. 385:78-86. doi:10.1056/NEJMsr2105065.
59. ↑ "Concerns about the use of polygenic embryo screening for psychiatric and cognitive traits" by Todd Lencz et al. (2022) The Lancet Psychiatry 9(10):838-844. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00157-2.
60. ↑ "Down syndrome: Coercion and eugenics" by Linda L. McCabe & Edward R. B. McCabe (2011) Genetics in Medicine 13:708–710. doi:10.1097/GIM.0b013e318216db64.
61. ↑ [Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar? Disability and the Future of Prenatal by Gareth M. Thomas & Barbara Katz Rothman (2016) American Medical Association Journal of Ethics 18(4):406-415. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.stas1-1604.
62. ↑ Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review by Caroline Mansfield et al. (1999) Prenatal Diagnosis 19:808-812. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0223(199909)19:9<808::aid-pd637>3.0.co;2-b.
63. ↑ The Debate Over Terminating Down Syndrome Pregnancies: Due to abortions, only one or two babies with Down syndrome are born each year in Iceland, sparking debate over prenatal testing for ‘genetic abnormalities.’ by Jessica Wakeman (December 6, 2018) Healthline.
64. ↑ "Survey of prenatal screening policies in Europe for structural malformations and chromosome anomalies, and their impact on detection and termination rates for neural tube defects and Down’s syndrome." by P. A. Boyd et al. (2008) BJOG 115(6):689–696. doi:0.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01700.x.
65. ↑ Don’t Screen Us Out
66. ↑ "Prenatal Testing, Down Syndrome, and Selective Termination: A (Critical) Criminology of Genocide?"by Ryan Thorneycroft (2022). In: Diversity in Criminology and Criminal Justice Studies, edited by Derek M. D. Silva & Mathieu Deflem. Emerald Publishing Limited. ISBN 1801170010. pp. 167-181.
67. ↑ 67.0 67.1 67.2 Screening Embryos for Polygenic Conditions and Traits: Ethical Considerations for an Emerging Technology by Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz et al. (2021) Genet Med. 3(3):432–434. doi:10.1038/s41436-020-01019-3.
68. ↑ Polygenic screening of embryos is here, but is it ethical? The first child born using the technique arrived last year. But can it really help reduce diseases in a new generation, or is it ‘techno-eugenics’? by Philip Ball (17 Oct 2021 06.00 EDT) The Guardian.
69. ↑ Designer Babies? The Ethical and Regulatory Implications of Polygenic Embryo Screening by Hannah Rahim (March 11, 2024) The Petrie-Flom Center.
70. ↑ "Where Will We Draw the Line? Public Opinions of Human Gene Editing" by Kirsten A. Riggan et al. (2019) Qualitative Health Research 29(12):1823–1835. doi:10.1177/1049732319846867.
71. ↑ Study Reveals Public Opinion on Polygenic Embryo Screening for IVF by Stephanie Dutchen (May 14, 2024) Harvard Medical School.
72. ↑ Public Attitudes, Interests, and Concerns Regarding Polygenic Embryo Screening by Rémy A. Furrer et al. (2024) JAMA Network Open 7(5):e2410832. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.10832.
73. ↑ Polygenic embryo screening: are there potential maternal and fetal harms? by Perrine Ginod & Michael H. Dahan (2023) Reproductive BioMedicine Online 47(6):103327. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103327.
74. ↑ Screening embryos for polygenic disease risk: a review of epidemiological, clinical, and ethical considerations by Antonio Capalbo (2024) Human Reproduction Update 30(5):529–557. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmae012.
75. ↑ Cancer in children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a cohort study by Nona Sargisian et al. (2022) PLoS Med. 19(9):e1004078. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004078.
76. ↑ "Survey of 243 ART patients having made a final disposition decision about their surplus cryopreserved embryos: the crucial role of symbolic embryo representation" by C. Bruno et al. (2016)  Hum. Reprod. 31(7):1508–1514. doi:10.1093/humrep/dew104.
77. ↑ Liberal eugenics, coercion and social pressure by Blanca Rodríguez López (2024) Enrahonar. An International Journal of Theoretical and Practical Reason 72:73-89.
78. ↑ 78.0 78.1 Keeping the Backdoor to Eugenics Ajar?: Disability and the Future of Prenatal Screening by Gareth M. Thomas & Barbara Katz Rothman (April 2016) AMA Journal of Ethics 18(4):406-415. doi:10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.4.stas1-1604.
79. ↑ "What kind of society do you want to live in?": Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing by Julian Quinones & Arijeta Lajka (August 15, 2017 / 2:17 AM EDT) CBS News.
80. ↑ Down syndrome: coercion and eugenics by Linda L. McCabe & R. B. McCabe (2011) Genetics in Medicine 13(8):708-710. doi:0.1097/GIM.0b013e318216db64.
81. ↑ "Screening for Down syndrome: changing practice of obstetricians" by Deborah A Driscoll et al. (2009) Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 200(4):459.e1–459.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.12.027.
82. ↑ Down's syndrome: 'In all honesty we were offered 15 terminations' by Charlie Jones (24 October 2020) BBC.
83. ↑ The Best Possible Child by Michael Parker (2007) Journal of Medical Ethics 33(5):279–283. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.018176.
84. ↑ Disability and Genetics: A Disability Critique of Pre-natal Testing and Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) by Adrienne Asch & Dorit Barlevy (2012) eLS. doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0005212.pub2.
85. ↑ Facts, Myths, & Truths About Down Syndrome National Down Syndrome Society.
86. ↑ "Why Members of the Disability Community Oppose Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion" by Marsha Saxton (2000). In: Prenatal Testing and Disability Rights, edited by Erik Parens & Adrienne Asch. Georgetown University Press. ISBN 0878408045. pp. 147–164.
87. ↑ Backdoor to Eugenics by Troy Duster (1990) Routledge. ISBN 0415946743.
88. ↑ "A Not-So-New Eugenics: Harris and Savulescu on Human Enhancement" by Robert Sparrow (2011) Hastings Center Report 41(1):32–42. doi:10.1002/j.1552-146x.2011.tb00098.x.
89. ↑ Let’s see how Donald Trump handles bad news! by Daniel W. Drezner (September 29 at 9:03 AM) The Washington Post.
90. ↑ Trump told a crowd of nearly all white supporters that they have 'good genes' by John Haltiwanger (Sep 22, 2020) Business Insider.
91. ↑ Sydney Sweeney’s voter registration emerges amid uproar over controversial American Eagle jeans ad by Isabel Keane (3 August 2025 12:12 EDT) Independent.
92. ↑ What has America learned from the Sydney Sweeney situation? We asked the experts by Scottie Andrew et al. (Aug 2, 2025) CNN.
93. ↑ 93.0 93.1 You're probably a eugenicist by Diana Fleischman (Feb 06, 2023) Dissentient, Substack.
94. ↑ 94.0 94.1 Can ‘eugenics’ be defended? by Walter Veit et. al. (2021) Monash Bioethics Review 39(2):60-67. doi:10.1007/s40592-021-00129-1.
95. ↑ "Eugenics offended" by Robert A. Wilson (2021) Monash Bioethics Review 39(2):169-176. doi:10.1007/s40592-021-00145-1.
96. ↑ 96.0 96.1 History of Eugenics (Jun 2, 2022) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
97. ↑ "The case for conserving disability" by Rosemarie Garland-Thomson (2012) Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9(3):339–355. doi:10.1007/s11673-012-9380-0. Epub 2012 Jul 18.
98. ↑ Looking into the shadow: the eugenics argument in debates on reproductive technologies and practices by Giulia Cavaliere (2018) Monash Bioethics Review 36(1):1–22. doi:10.1007/s40592-018-0086-x.
99. ↑ Liberal Eugenics by Nicholas Agar (1998) Public Affairs Quarterly 12(2):137-155.
100. ↑ "Liberalism and Eugenics" by Robert Sparrow (2010) Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89(3):499-517. doi:10.1080/00048402.2010.484464.
101. ↑ "Selecting Against Disability: The Liberal Eugenic Challenge and the Argument from Cognitive Diversity" by Christopher Gyngell & Thomas Douglas (2018) Journal of Applied Philosophy 35(2):319-340. doi:10.1111/japp.12199.
102. ↑ "A Critique of Liberal Eugenics: Disability and the Problem of Inclusion" by Yoshitaro Hotta (2008) Journal of Philosophy and Ethics in Health Care and Medicine 3:86-107.
103. ↑ Noninvasive Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and Eugenic Aims: A Bioethical Reflection by Fermín J. González-Melado & María L. Di Pietro (2012) Linacre Quarterly 79(3):282–303. doi:10.1179/002436312804872668.
104. ↑ Expressivist objections to prenatal screening and testing: Perceptions of people living with disability by Felicity Boardman & Gareth Thomas (2023) Sociology of Health & Illness 45(6):1223-1241. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13559.
105. ↑ 105.0 105.1 The expressivist objection to prenatal testing: the experiences of families living with genetic disease by Felicity Kate Boardman (2014) Soc. Sci. Med. 107:18-25. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.025.
106. ↑ 106.0 106.1 Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics by Adam Rutherford (2022) W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 1324035609.
107. ↑ Control by Adam Rutherford review – a warning from history about eugenics: To know the story of this dark science is to inoculate ourselves against its being repeated, argues the science writer and broadcaster by Katy Guest (10 Feb 2022 09.19 EST) The Guardian.
108. ↑ 108.0 108.1 108.2 Q&A: Adam Rutherford. We talk to the geneticist and leading humanist about evolution, racism and eugenics. by J. P. O'Malley (23rd January 2023) New Humanist".
109. ↑ The role of science in eugenics: past, present, and future? Review of: Control: The dark history and troubling present of eugenics by Chris Willmott (2024) Evolution 78(5):1014–1017. doi:10.1093/evolut/qpae032.
110. ↑ Review: Control by Adam Rutherford by Katie Burton (13 May 2022) Geographical.
111. ↑ Book review by Sean P. Hughes (February 2024) British Society for the History of Medicine.
112. ↑ Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics by Adam Rutherford review – unnatural selection by Tim Adams (30 Jan 2022 02.00 EST) The Guardian.
113. ↑ Reproductive carrier screening: responding to the eugenics critique by Lisa Dive & Ainsley J. Newson (2022) Journal of Medical Ethics 48:1060–1067. doi:10.1136/medethics-2021-107343.
114. ↑ Edwards' syndrome National Health Service.
115. ↑ Trisomy 18 Mississippi State Department of Health.
116. ↑ The "Nobel Prize Sperm Bank" Was Racist. It Also Helped Change the Fertility Industry: The Repository for Germinal Choice was supposed to produce super-kids from the sperm of white high achievers by Kat Eschner (June 9, 2017) Smithsonian Magazine.
117. ↑ 117.0 117.1 117.2 The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank by David Plotz (2005) Random House. ISBN 1400061245.
118. ↑ The Myths of the Nobel Sperm Bank: The truth about who gave sperm, how they gave it, and who used it. by David Plotz (Feb 23, 20013:00 AM) Slate.
119. ↑ So You Want Your Child to Be a Genius? Book review: D Plotz. 2005. The genius factory… by Jonathan Flint (2006) PLoS Biol. 4(5):e139. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040139.
120. ↑ A Eugenicist Engineered Me To Be A Genius Baby (Feb 6, 2020) The Center for Bioethics and Culture Network.
121. ↑ A sperm bank just for supersmart people, CNN, Oct 8, 2014
122. ↑ 6 Realities Of Growing Up The Product Of A Eugenics Scam by Ryan Menezes & Nick Isel (March 20, 2017) Cracked.
123. ↑ The Genius Factory: Testtube Superbabies, book review by Polly Morrice (July 3, 2005) The New York Times.
124. ↑ Longtime Australian policy: Kidnapping children from families by Philip Knightley (February 8, 2001) Center for Public Integrity.
125. ↑ Eugenics is just applied quantitative genetics: you have a problem with that? by Gregory Cochran (7:22 AM · Aug 14, 2018) Twitter (archived from 30 Jun 2025 14:55:22 UTC).
126. ↑ Eugenics and the master race of the left – archive, 1997 by Jonathan Freedland (1 May 2019 10.36 EDT) The Guardian.
127. ↑ Planned Parenthood in N.Y. Disavows Margaret Sanger Over Eugenics: Ms. Sanger, a feminist icon and reproductive-rights pioneer, supported a discredited belief in improving the human race through selective breeding. by Nikita Stewart (July 21, 2020) The New York Times.

Our articles related to evolution

- Phylogeny - Evolution - Natural selection - Cladistics - Acceptance - EvoWiki - De-evolution - Theory of Evolution - Stephen Jay Gould - Signal detection theory - Microevolution - Fossil record - Dinosaur - Social Darwinism - Human - Niche - Uncommon Descent - Common descent: the incontrovertible evidence - Phylogenetics -