| Galton Institute Home Page | March 2003 Newsletter Contents | Newsletter Index |
In 1939 an organisation in Washington calling itself ‘Science Service’ invited replies from scientists to the question ‘How could the world’s population be improved most effectively genetically?’ In August the International Congress of Genetics met in Edinburgh, and it seems likely that the reply to this question which appeared in Nature (September 16, p.521) was drafted during the Congress. In any event it was signed by a number of leading geneticists, including Crew, Darlington, Haldane, Hogben, Julian Huxley, Muller, Needham, Dahlberg, Dobzhansky, Emerson, Landauer, Steinberg and Waddington (full list below).
They pointed out that the question raised far broader problems than the purely biological ones, and that in the absence of approximately equal opportunities it was impossible to estimate and compare the intrinsic worth of different individuals. A second major hindrance to genetic improvement was the existent of racial prejudice and the unscientific doctrine that good or bad genes were the monopoly of particular races, which could only be removed through the effective federation of the whole world. In addition, it was unreasonable to suppose that parents could be expected to be influenced by the needs of future generations unless they enjoyed an adequate medical, economic and educational environment for their children and unless, in particular, conditions of employment were adapted to the needs of mothers.
It would further be necessary, the geneticists argued, for far more effective birth control to be available at all stages of the reproductive process, in both negative and positive senses. As to the former, they supported voluntary sterilization, contraception and abortion (‘as a third line of defence’). But above all there was a need to educate the public, and the State, in the biological principles of genetics and the relative contributions of nature and nurture to the determination of factors contributing to human welfare. It was essential for it to be understood that the inherited characteristics of a generation could only be better than those of the previous generation through selection, and that in a modern population such selection would have to be the result of conscious guidance.
Such selection required objectives to be stated, of course, and the most important characteristics for genetic improvement were those contributing to health, intelligence and civilized social temperament (as opposed to personal success). The raising of the averages of these qualities, insofar as they were genetically determined, to the levels enjoyed by the best individuals would be possible within only a few generations.
Finally, intensive research in human genetics and allied subjects was essential on a much larger scale than hitherto, but this could only come about when men’s minds had turned away from war and hate and the struggle for existence.
The signatories were F.A.E.Crew, C.D.Darlington, J.B.S.Haldane, S.C.Harland, L.T.Hogben, J.S.Huxley, H.J.Muller, J.Needham, G.P.Child, P.R.David, G.Dahlberg, Th.Dobzhansky, R.A.Emerson, C.Gordon, J.Hammond, C.L.Huskins, P.C.Koller, W.Landauer, H.H.Plough, B.Price, J.Schultz, A.G.Steinberg and C.H.Waddington. It would be interesting to know if anyone who was asked declined to sign; a notable absentee, a member of the Eugenics Society, was R.A.Fisher, who was certainly at the Edinburgh Congress, but who may well have felt unable to share the political sentiments of colleagues such as Haldane, Hogben and Needham.
A W F Edwards