The Journal of Heredity 1933:24(4):143-144
© 1933 The American Genetic Association 24:143-144
research-article |
IS EUGENICS DEAD?
Worcester, Mass
Abstract
THE following brief and provocative communication presents a view that is probably general enough to deserve discussion. Mr. Forbes is a business man who has for many years been interested in "positive" eugenics as evidenced by a brief article on this subject lie contributed to the JOURNAL in 1921. His question therefore is not that of the entirely casual layman. For these reasons Mr. Forbes' permission was obtained to send proof of his letter to several recognised leaders of eugenic thought in the United States, with an invitation to discuss briefly these expressed fears regarding the moribund condition of eugenics. As would be expected, replies for publication were not forthcoming from all those to whom this proof was sent, but so much of interest was contained in the comments received, that for once the Editor feels justified by the results in the course adopted. Obviously no endorsement of any or all of the somewhat conflicting, views is implied in their publication.
It may be of interest to review in this connection the status of this Association with regard to the eugenics movement. The question of the policy that should be pursued has been discussed at many meetings of the Council of the Association. It has been the consensus of these discussions that the most useful purpose this organisation could fill is to avoid the adoption of any definite and unequivocal "policy" with regard to eugenics. In the present state of knowledge and of popular opinion regarding the significance of genetic principles in their application to human affairs, there is great need for a source of accurate and unbiased information, not embarrassed by adherence to any particular "program." It has been the policy of the Council that we should avoid official "axes to grind" other than that all-important "axe"—a demand for more knowledge,—and the presentation of this knowledge in a form that will be intelligible to all who are genuinely interested in the subject. This attitude of "no axes" is carried by some members of the Council to the extent that we are prepared to give favorable consideration to analyses that might demonstrate fundamental unsoundness in present eugenic efforts. It is the conviction of the writer that the recognition of at present unappreciated principles, that is, an "inventive approach" or a "mutation" of social ideas is urgently needed in the development of this subject.
In the past we have gladly opened the pages of the JOURNAL to discussions of eugenics. Perhaps Mr. Forbes' questions, and the answers that they have elicited, will inspire other contributions regarding eugenic theory or practice.—some of them embodying the revolutionary changes suggested in the preceding paragraph. If the JOURNAL is privileged to present some of the fundamental contributions to this vitally important and fascinatingly complicated subject, it can hardly serve a more useful purpose.—EDITOR.