BBH 496
Its difficult to comprehend that little over a century ago, an idea invaded the United
States that would physically and emotionally scar thousands of its citizens. At first, the concept
of a eugenic world is quite attractive. Eliminating genetically inherited traits associated with
disease, physical mutations, criminal acts, and mental abnormalities is something the majority of
the population can come to agreement on. The ultimate question remains: which traits are
considered undesirable by societal standards and have potential to negatively impact society?
Accordingly, who decides what traits are such? If only genetics association with social
stratification was that simple. Though the term is now predominately associated with the Nazism
movement of the 1930s-1940s, the ideology played a significant part in immigration influence
near the turn of the 20th century. The unwarranted actions taken against the mentally
Prior to Sir Francis Galtons creation of eugenics, the concept of genetics itself had to be
established in the world. Since the beginning of time, humans were aware of the benefits
associated with superior offspring. Whether it meant cultivating certain plant species or breeding
specific types of animals, the traits for a healthier and more plentiful offspring helped sustain
human survival. As creationism lost its luster over time, many turned to science for answers
regarding the human body. Hippocrates brick and mortar theory hypothesized that the body
produces a physical substance derived from the various parts of the body. This is contained in the
male semen and assembled into an embryo inside the womb. This physical substance is the
underlying cause to the characters inherited (Sturtevant 1). Certain elements of this theory would
be used in Charles Darwins idea of pangenesis. Another belief of the great physician was
acquired inheritance. For example, an Olympic gold medalist skier would pass on lateral
Wisniewski 2
movement skill and exceptional balance parts onto their offspring (Foley, 2013). Challenging
Hippocrates, Aristotle argued that humans missing limbs could produce perfectly normal
offspring. If Hippocrates theory were true, the children of such individuals would be physically
impaired as well. He also noted that certain characteristics inherited were not displayed until late
adulthood. Essentially, Aristotle concluded that what is inherited is not the characters
themselves in any sense but only the potentiality of producing them (Sturtevant 2).
While previous philosophers and botanists had recognized hereditary mechanisms and the
importance of hybrids, Gregor Johann Mendel was the first to define a biological model that
explained such scientific findings. Born in 1822 in a small village then part of Austria, Mendel
came from an impoverished neighborhood. After being ordained a priest in 1847, he spent two
years at the University of Vienna studying botany, chemistry, physics, mathematics, zoology,
entomology, and paleontology (Sturtevant 9). Such education no doubt led him to utilize
quantitative and experimental methodologies. Upon his return to the Augustinian monastery in
Brnn, Mendel began conducting his pea plant experiments that displayed distinctively different
dominant and recessive hybrids. Published in 1866, Experiments on Plant Hybridization explains
how the genetic offspring ratio is due to random union (in fertilization) of gametes half of
which are pure for one and half for the other of each pair of alternatives, such as A or a (Dunn
9). The 1:2:1 genotypic ratio and 3:1 phenotypic ratios produced were slightly due to luck. The
pea is a self-fertilizing plant that is simple to cultivate, isolate and cross. He simplified
removing every source of error since closely related varieties were being crossed and not species
(Stubbe 129). Independent assortment and segregation too were vital in solidifying these
assertions by helping to explain why progeny sometime differ from their parents. While the
Wisniewski 3
worlds understanding of genetics has enhanced with the discovery of penetrance and linkage,
the core of Mendels principles continue to live on. Due to his descriptive statistics and orderly
experimenting, Mendel was the first to solidly prove the number of different forms in which the
offspring of hybrids appear, certain classification of these forms according to their separate
generations, and the statistical relations among them (Stubbe 126). It is of great importance that
Mendels theories reemerged simultaneously with the rise of the eugenics movement near the
turn of the 20th century. There was now a solid scientific foundation one could rely on when
Charles Darwins Origin of the Species and Descent of Man were absolutely vital in
helping Mendels notions become universally accepted among the scientific community. While
natural selection advocated for the survival of the fittest, the elimination of the unfit and their
genetic material would virtually be impossible due to the extreme amount of time required. Then
again, the removal of negative alleles may be impossible due to mutations and heterozygote
advantage (The bad gene, 2016). In 1868, Darwin coined pangenesis to describe units of
inheritance between parents and children. As human cells shed minute particles, called
gemmules, they flow throughout the body and eventually settle in the gonads. Gemmules were
heritable and could be influenced by the environment. Ultimately, they were believed to be the
mode of transmission of characteristics to offspring (Zou, 2014). Galton put these beliefs to the
evidence to support the claims and many abandoned pangenesis altogether (Liu, 2008).
However, Darwins idea of pangenesis was an important precursor for eugenics by garnering
interest in inheritance.
Wisniewski 4
Inspired by his cousin Darwin, Galton expanded upon these ideas and began to consider
how permanent improvements could be made to the human race. If the unfit and unwanted were
to be rationally selected out of the population, would not the cognitively and physically supreme
dominate the earth? This was a new notion to the scientific community. It was previously
believed that biological inferiority was due to environment and not hereditability. Galton
believed intellect, talent, and other characteristics were genetically transferred from generation to
generation (Grigg, 2005). Using a Greek root meaning noble in heredity, the term eugenics
was created. Essentially playing God, rational selection was doing a credited service to society
since the unwanted and unfit would slowly be removed from the population as time progressed.
Though it took until the turn of the century to be widely accepted, many began contemplating of
While England sought selective breeding for positive traits, the United States took a
different approach to eugenics by focusing on the removal of negative, undesirable traits from
the population by sterilization (Bouche and Rivard, 2014). Its atrocious that American eugenic
forcibly segregated thousands into colonies, and victimized many, many more (Bouche and
Rivard, 2014).
Similar to other nations in the late 1800s, the United States was plagued with major
economic and social problems. The Industrial Revolution was just beginning and the economic
gap between business owners and workers was beginning to grow. Many worked in unsuitable
conditions for little pay in order to afford rent for poor housing (The Progressive Era Part 1: A
Better Life for Americans). Additionally, competition from foreign immigrants did not help
matters. Between 1877 and 1900, roughly 7,348,000 people immigrated to the United States. As
Wisniewski 5
a result, the population exploded from 49 million in 1880 to 76 million in 1900 (White). This
enormous influx prompted much hatred and unwarranted discrimination toward immigrants.
Including all of these factors, its not surprising people looked for any type of solution to the
multitude of unbearable problems. In order to justify these sentiments, many cited eugenics as an
excuse to forbid foreigners entry. This unjustifiable labeling of mass populations is disheartening
to say the least. Many individuals were in actuality completely normal human beings with
Surprisingly, one of the earliest proponents of the movement in the United States was
inventor Alexander Graham Bell. Deeply engrossed with human speech, Bell was alarmed by the
rising numbers of the deaf and mute. He despised sign language and found such forms of
communication other than English being taught in public schools un-American. Immigration was
of great concern, and he did not want undesirable ethnic elements poisoning America and
encouraged Congress to deny them entry in order to encourage the evolution of a higher and
nobler type of man in America (Signing, Alexander Graham Bell and the NAD, 2007).
Though he did not support restrictions on intermarriages between the deaf, he suggested finding
the underlying factors responsible and if possible, eliminate them. Ultimately, he wanted to
prevent the emergence of a deaf race that would be in conflict with Americas way of living.
Having such a prominent figure agree and promote such beliefs had a significant effect on the
The true leader of promoting the eugenics movement in the United States would
from Harvard in 1892 and later taught at his alma mater and The University of Chicago.
Intrigued by human heredity, Davenport was very much tied to eugenics argument. His home
Wisniewski 6
state of Connecticut was one of the first to enact marriage laws that forbade the epileptic,
society today where the marriage of same sexes is encouraged, its astonishing to think certain
unions between individuals was forbidden not too long ago. Using his passion for the science of
the improvement of the human race by better breeding, he transformed the Station for
Experimental Evolution into a genetics and eugenics research center (Charles B. Davenport,
2015). Thus, The Eugenics Record Office was created in 1910. The ultimate goal was to
improve the natural, physical, and temperamental qualities of the human family (Bouche and
Rivard, 2014). Davenport received much financial support from university scholars, affluent
individuals, the Carnegie Institute, and even the Rockefeller Foundation (Daniels, 2004-2005).
All of these organizations desired the prosperity of the Nordic Race. Years prior to Davenport,
the castration and sterilization of the feebleminded in mental hospitals and prisoners was already
being committed. Eugenics provided a scientific basis for these thoughts. Thus, such procedures
were expanded to mentally stable, law-abiding citizens. Once such acts became constitutional,
there was not stopping from overtaking America. Figure 1 displays eugenics sterilization
Source: The Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine: An Alliance of the Boston Medical Library and Harvard
Medical School, Eugenics Legislation - Bills and Laws, 2015,
<https://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/exhibits/show/galtonschildren/eugenics-legislation>
Even more disturbing is that due to Davenports efforts, eugenics became part of public
school and university curriculum. Among the impressionable youth of society, its quite probable
eugenics would play a critical role in contemporary society had not Hitler contaminated this way
In particular, eugenics was heavily adopted in California. Over 20,000 people were
sterilized (1/3 of the nations total) in this state. Among those sterilized, nearly 60% were seen as
mentally ill and greater than 35% were considered mentally deficient (Kaelber, 2009). How did
Wisniewski 8
these staggering numbers accrue over the course of time? Eugenic beliefs prospered in California
for numerous reasons. The large arrival of European American settlers beginning in the late
1800s due to new financial opportunities created a sense of duty for one civilize this foreign
land. The culture of these new civilizations prompted the application of heredity and biology.
There was monetary incentives for the fit to produce more offspring (Stern 85). Parents were
encouraged to enter their children in Better Baby contests held at state fairs. Comparable to
judging livestock, a panel of judges would examine both the physical health and intelligence of
the infants. Head size, strength of spine, and the ability to crawl of walk were all evaluated
(Oveyssi, 2015). However, these contests eventually transitioned into Fitter Family contests
where the entire familys fitness was taken into account. This change of focus to hereditary
Watts to give 50 percent to heredity before you begin to score a baby and that a prize
winner at two may be an epileptic at ten (Oveyssi, 2015). By defending the transition with the
argument that there was truly no better way in determining the superiority of the child other than
Additionally, a strong affinity existed between the doctrines of Manifest Destiny and
nativism that entered California during and after the Gold Rush and eugenic racism (Stern 85).
Since the United States believed they had the God-given right to expand from Atlantic to Pacific,
it did not want aliens influencing the establishment of new areas. Chinese, Latin Americans, and
American Indians were very much discriminated against during the mid to late 1800s. Being
different and ambitious was a lethal combination for these ethnic groups. Lack of familial
support was another factor. Males composed the majority of these immigrant groups. After
saving up enough money, they would then send the rest of their family to America. Such was
Wisniewski 9
difficult given the extremely competitive atmosphere. The Chinese Exclusion Acts display the
While the protection of the United States-Mexico border is very much a hot topic in
todays political world, the border control exercised eugenic principles against legal immigrants
gaining entry from Mexico during the beginning of the 20th century. Alexandra Stern excellently
describes the importance of environmentalists, public health officials, and marriage counselors in
regards to forming attitudes about heredity and progress (Bashford and Levine 517). Specifically,
the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the Border Patrol shaped the complicated process
health and cleanliness standards. The USPHS performed quarantines, delousing, and fumigation
along the border daily. Such actions negatively affected the publics perception of immigrants. A
strong anti-Mexican sentiment grew from the immigrants association with dirtiness and disease
(Bashford and Levine 517). Though no longer associated with unfitness and disease, one still
hears the utterance of dirty Mexicans in regards to illegal immigration. Such racist remarks can
Eugenics is still very much alive in contemporary society today. Between 2006 and 2010,
illegal sterilization took place among at least 148 women in California prisons. At least one of
these women were strong-armed into having the procedure done (Campos, 2013). The tubal
ligations these women endured were not authorized by the state board. Though Californias
prison sterilization laws werent outlawed until 1979, the suffering of these women prisoners
proves that the state of California will most likely never escape its eugenics past (Campos,
2013).
Wisniewski 10
Many consider pre-natal testing a form of eugenics since one can select certain traits
while discarding unwanted ones. The uniqueness of this procedure is that its non-invasive.
Humans are now able to partially determine the fitness of their offspring by disposing or aborting
fetuses that contain genetic predispositions for life-threatening traits. The unfit are essentially
never brought into existence to eventually die off. Its a bit alarming that the same eugenic
ideology inspires what happened then and the techniques that are being developed now
(Hubbard 236). Again, it prompts the question of who has the right to decide if a human being
should or should not inhabitant this world. One could validly argue that the parents have the
ultimate choice since they indeed are the ones uniting to create said human. While mothers are
given the choice to decide the future of the child theyre carrying, its almost as though the
decision has been made for them before they even hear the genetic test results. Choosing to carry
and deliver a baby who exhibits a particular disability may bring about feeling of extreme guilt in
the future. The child and family members may hold the mother responsible for causing the
physical pain and social turmoil that accompanies living in a world where people with
disabilities are not exactly welcomed with open arms (Hubbard 237). Both partners must weigh
the benefits and disadvantages of bringing such a child into the world. Then again, is life with a
disability better than no life at all? Had the mapping of the human genome existed a century ago,
eugenicists and German Nazis wouldve utilized it for their causes (Entine, 2013). As more
diseases and traits become linked to specific genes, one has to ponder if society will ever reach
the point where it can ultimately determine every facet of offspring. Given that certain
characteristics are controlled by multiple genes, it seems researchers are being asked the
impossible. One also cannot neglect environmental influence. More importantly, is the world
Works Cited
Bashford, Alison and Philippa Levine, eds. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics.
Bouche, Teryn and Laura Rivard. Americas Hidden History: The Eugenics Movement.
< http://www.nature.com/scitable/forums/genetics-generation/america-s-hidden-history-
the-eugenics-movement-123919444>
Campos, Paul. Eugenics Are Alive and Well In the United States. Time. Time, Inc., 10 July
-well-in-the-united-states/>
Daniels, Rodney. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and Americas Campaign to Create a
Master Race Review. Northern Kentucky University: Perspectives in History Vol. XX,
<http://www.nku.edu/content/dam/hisgeo/docs/archives/Vol20_2004-
2005perspectives.pdf#page=79>
Entine, Jon. DNA screening is part of the new eugenicsand thats okay. Genetic Literacy
Project. The Genetic Literacy Project, 8 July 2013. Web. 1 October 2016.
<https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/07/08/dna-screening-is-part-of-the-new
Wisniewski 12
-eugenics-and-thats-okay/>
Foley, Mackenzie. Genetics: Past, Present, and Future. Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of
< http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/05/genetics-past-present-and-future/#.V_sc3uArLIV>
*Gillham, Nicholas Wright. A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth
Grigg, Russell. "Eugenics death of the defenceless: The legacy of Darwins cousin
Hubbard, Ruth. "Eugenics and prenatal testing." International Journal of Health Services 16.2
<http://joh.sagepub.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/content/16/2/227.full.pdf+html>
Kaelber, Lutz. Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States. UVM Today. The
< http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/CA/CA.html>
Liu, Yongsheng. "A new perspective on Darwins Pangenesis." Biological Reviews 83.2 (2008):
Oveyssi, Natalie. Forgotten Stories of the Eugenic Age #1: How Better Babies became Fitter
Families. Biopolitical Times. Center for Genetics and Society, 7 July 2015. Web. 5
Stern, Alexandra Minna. Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern
Van Duyne. The Progressive Era Part 1: A Better Life for Americans. Web. 4 August 2016.
< http://www.mrvanduyne.com/homework/Unit3b/PEHomeworkReading.pdf>
White, Richard. The Rise of Industrial America, 1877-1900. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of
American History. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, n.d. Web. 25
-america-1877-1900>
Zou, Yawen. Charles Darwins Theory of Pangenesis. The Embryo Project Encyclopedia.
The Embryo Project at Arizona State University, 20 July 2014. Web. 25 August 2016.
< https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/charles-darwins-theory-pangenesis>
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/misconcep_04>
Charles B. Davenport. The Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine. The President and
< https://collections.countway.harvard.edu/onview/exhibits/show/galtonschildren/galton
-s-children/charles-b--davenport>
October 2016.
<http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/eugenics_physical.html>
Signing, Alexander Graham Bell and the NAD. PBS, March 2007. Web. 6 September 2016.
< http://www.pbs.org/weta/throughdeafeyes/deaflife/bell_nad.html>
Wisniewski 15