ISSN 1359-9321 The Galton Institute NEWSLETTER

Galtonia candicans Issue Number 74 September 2010

Origins of Positive Eugenics in Britain Contents

Tracing the Trajectory The term ‘positive eugenics’ came into prominence early in the history of of ‘Positive Eugenics’ eugenics, although not before the founda- Tracing the Trajectory of tion of the Eugenics Education Society in in Britain 1907. Several authors have credited its ‘Positive Eugenics’ in creation to Caleb Williams Saleeby by (1878-1940),64 an early leader of the Britain 1 eugenics movement. Saleeby was a gifted Anthony J. Dellureficio speaker and propagandist, though not an investigator. As such he was contentious Galton Institute in the eyes of many of the scientists in the Conference 2010 16 movement, although he played a signifi- What follows is Part 2 of a disserta- cant role by interpreting complicated tion submitted to the University of genetics issues for lay members of the Manchester for the degree of Master eugenics community. A letter he wrote to of Science in the Facultyof Life Francis Galton in 1909 lends support to Sciences. Part 1 appeared in the last Saleeby’s nature as a eugenic neologist. issue of the Newsletter. The letter asks Galton’s opinion on the term “dygenics versus kakogenics. I am for the former as neater and sufficiently correct” and expresses gratitude at Positive Eugenics in Britain Pearson “using my ‘eugenicist’ rather than ‘eugenician’.”65 The introduction of The general theory of eugenics in the term ‘positive eugenics’ did not come Britain arose from investigations into how without dissention, however. Numerous society affects evolution and ‘natural debates were recorded in the Eugenics selection’, and whether humans could Review, for example in 1910, Montague employ the laws of evolution to improve Crackanthorpe (1832-1913), second their social condition. In essence, the president of the Eugenics Education eugenicists wished to direct human Society, wrote in his presidential address evolution. From the earliest days of that the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ Galton’s research into eugenics, he eugenics might be renamed due to considered eugenic improvements mathematical confusion as “…Negative Published by: through elimination of the worst or ‘unfit’ and Positive Eugenics reinforce instead of The Galton Institute traits, and through an increased propaga- 66 cancelling or neutralising each other.” 19 Northfields Prospect tion of the best or ‘fit’ traits. Although He also feared that the terms would be Northfields Galton coined the term ‘eugenics’ in his seen as generally pejorative and distract Inquiries into Human Faculty in 1883, the people from the eugenic cause. Instead he LONDON SW18 1PE roots of his concept for improving the suggested using the terms ‘restrictive’ and Telephone: 020-8874 7257 human social condition through evolu- ‘constructive’ to replace ‘negative’ and tionary means began much earlier, and a ‘positive’, respectively. Both sets of terms General Secretary: number of developments which had were used interchangeably during the Mrs Betty Nixon profound social impacts precipitated the early years, though ‘positive’ and popularity of Galton’s new science. The ‘negative’ eventually won permanence. Newsletter Editor: next section will explore the various The issue was again raised in 1939 in a David Galton scientific and social origins contributing letter from R. Austin Freeman to the Web site: to the rise in the eugenic paradigm and secretary of the Eugenics Education how they specifically advanced the Society, Carlos Blacker. “Referring to the www.galtoninstitute.org.uk development of ‘positive eugenics’. point raised by Lord Horder at the

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 1 SEPTEMBER 2010 Council meeting as to the use of the counter-argument presented by the pro- whelming majority of eugenic-minded words, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’, I find colonial Charles Kingsley in 1858, individuals in Britain. According to myself in strong agreement with him, however suggested that over-population Mackenzie, eugenic theories appealed to especially in regard to the word would not be possible; furthermore it was the ‘professional middle class’ because ‘negative’, which is quite inappropriate to the duty of the British to spread their race eugenics not only justified their position any kind of active policy…if it should as much as possible.69 In either case, above the working classes but also seem necessary to retain the distinction, ‘positive eugenics’ provided a satisfac- reassured their “technical and moral the two modes might be designated by tory solution, and MacNicol, in his article superiority” over the aristocracy.76 At the words more appropriate to the ideas, such on Inter-War sterilization in Britain, same time, however, their class was as Constructive and Eliminative or identifies eugenics as one of the suffering the greatest losses according to Inhibitory or Restrictive.”67 These efforts “ideological outcomes of the decline in the statistics of the declining birth rate. were again unsuccessful and the terms the birth rate.”70 In fact, this trend of The ‘professional middle class’ feared ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics declining birth rate appeared in popula- that this differential birth rate combined retained general favor in the society. tion statistics across Europe and America with a general reduction in British While the origins of the term ‘positive creating fears of national decline and population would lead to ‘race suicide’ eugenics’ and its usage come relatively influencing many nations to seek solu- and degeneration of national quality.77 In early in the history of eugenics, the tions through eugenics. In Britain, many fact, some social commentators argued origins of the theory date at least a half people began to fear that not only the that this differential birth rate was century prior. birth rate, but the “general fiber of their specifically “because the upper and nation – its overall moral character, middle classes were restricting their In the second half of the nineteenth intelligence, energy, ambition, and fertility”.78 MacKenzie’s analysis claims century and into the twentieth century, a capacity to compete in the world – was that “much of positive eugenics was a number of social and scientific develop- declining.”71 The shockingly bloody and straightforward response to this situa- ments gave impetus to eugenics solu- long drawn out Boer Wars in South tion.”79 Major Leonard Darwin (1850- tions. Among the social contributing Africa, supported by military statistics, 1943), one of the most influential factors were a declining birth rate, a convinced many British citizens that the presidents of the Eugenics Education differential birth rate, a rise in individual- physical well being of the nation was Society and son of Charles Darwin, wrote ism, a trend of social reform, and a rise in waning. “Political concerns were added in 1913 that “When the marriages conservatism. Scientific advances, such to social fears by the Boer War crisis; the amongst the higher types of the fit are as Darwinism, natural selection, a chronic ill health and physical weakness more fruitful than the marriages amongst persistence and reapplication of La- of the English working class revealed by the lower types or the unfit, then mankind marckian theories, the rediscovery of the recruitment programme and the is on the upward path; and, when the Mendel, and the application of statistics subsequent 1904 Inter-Departmental reverse is the case, the nation is degener- to biology, supported and were supported Committee on Physical Deterioration ating.”80 In 1920, he again wrote an by the social changes creating a new brought forcibly home to the public the article echoing this sentiment.81 Darwin biological paradigm for social reform. seriousness of the situation.”72 In 1916, a squarely blamed the degeneration of While these factors contributed to a National Birth Rate Commission pre- Britain on the results of a differential general rise in eugenic interest, each of sented their investigation of the birth rate birth rate, and as a firm supporter of both these factors contained specific implica- crisis. Among the members of the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ styles, he tions for the development of ‘positive Commission were a number of leaders of continually lent support to reversing the eugenics’. the Eugenics Education Society. In their trend of the differential birth rate by findings, they concluded that a decline in encouraging members of the Towards the beginning of the twenti- birth rate, rather than an increase in ‘professional middle class’ to conceive eth century, census records began to mortality, was the cause for the popula- more children. show a general decline in the population tion crisis in Britain.73 of Britain. The sociologist and historian Other social trends also contributed to of Victorian families, Joseph Banks, Perhaps even more crucial to the the rise of ‘positive eugenics’ in Britain. wrote in the 1950s that the perceived fall development of ‘positive eugenics’ in Issues such as the changing role of in the birth rate was enough to convince Britain was the differential birth rate. motherhood, an increase in feminism, some contemporary experts that “by From their statistical findings, the Poor Law reform, and a general sense of another generation the growth of num- National Birth Rate Commission drew conservatism signified a tendency bers will have come to an end alto- links between fertility, occupation, and towards individualism in Britain around gether.”68 Eventually, the population income.74 The Galton Laboratory this time. The Poor Law gave more rights would become so critically diminished provided the numbers for the statistical to the government to take away children that it would be unable to recover. The studies which showed steep declines in from unfit parents, but with Poor Law obvious solution was to increase the rate the middle classes and slow declines in reform in the early 1900s, the rights of of births in Britain, though many, lower classes. That the decline was the individual became more recognized.82 especially the Malthusians, believed that studied with respect to class stratification, In the wake of the waning influence of an increase in the birth rate required reflected an important underlying factor the Poor Law, eugenicists would find it control and close observation. According in British eugenics. The ‘professional increasingly difficult to pass legislation to Malthus’ calculations at the end of the middle class’, an actor’s category which might restrict the growth of the 18th century, an unchecked birth rate identified by MacKenzie, recruited lower classes through ‘negative eugenic’ would increase faster than the production membership through achievement and means. Moreover, this individualism and of essential supplies, such as food. A education.75 They were also the over- conservatism provided for an increased

SEPTEMBER 2010 2 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER sense of moral duty and individual childbirth, notably the law of maternal that if the financial burden which had responsibility, which contributed impressions – a commonplace assump- been placed on the ‘professional middle towards a general tendency for social tion, rooted in folk belief and Lamarck- class’ to care for the lower class were reform. Membership and goals of social ian theory, that the characteristics of lifted, they would be able to have more reform societies such as the Moral offspring were shaped by the experi- children. Education League and the Sociological ences of the pregnant mother.”85 The law Society greatly overlapped with that of of maternal impressions suggested, for Of all the scientists and scientific the Eugenics Education Society provid- example, that visualizing beautiful theories that contributed to the develop- ing a desire to improve the situations of children during pregnancy would ment of ‘positive eugenics’, none had a the poor.83 While many ‘negative improve the physical beauty of the more direct impact than its founder, eugenic’ measures were intended to unborn child. Whether or not eugenics Francis Galton (1822-1911). He viewed ultimately alleviate the plight of the poor helped to clear up these misconceptions, eugenics as a progressive measure by by reducing their numbers, those who there were eugenicists especially in the which humanity might improve itself were both eugenic-minded and social- early days of eugenics, who acted by through selective breeding.90 Further- minded tended to endorse environmental eugenic principles intending a Lamarck- more he hoped that it might form a rather than biological improvements for ian outcome. This form of improving “secular religion, with moral duty urging the poor, relying on ‘positive eugenic’ heredity through environmental changes a couple to include eugenic attributes as techniques and general eugenic educa- can be seen as supplementary to both part of a marriage decision.” Initially, tion to correct the imbalanced birthrate. ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics. The Galton did not intend eugenics to mimic social application of Darwin’s principles natural selection as was Crackanthorpe’s Whether these social changes were was far more influential on the eugeni- interpretation. Galton wrote that causative or reflective of the rise in cists. “Natural Selection rests upon excessive eugenics, the changes in biological production and wholesale destruction; understanding and application provided Darwin’s description of evolution and Eugenics on bringing no more individu- a scientific basis upon which eugenicists his suggested mechanism, ‘natural als into the world than can be properly could argue their case. Prior to the selection’, played an important role in cared for, and those only of the best rediscovery of Mendel’s work on shaping the scientific concerns of the stock.”91 In his first studies on this ‘best genetics around 1900, and indeed for eugenicists, and “brought about a flow of stock’, he collected and published the many years following its rediscovery, proto-eugenic writings that foreshad- pedigrees of gifted families, an investi- competing theories of genetic inheri- owed the salient concerns of the post- gation which appealed to his interest in tance supported a variety of measures 1900 movement, particularly the notion statistics. Even from this humble intended to fulfill the goals of eugenics. that “artificial selection” – state or beginning as a theoretical study, how- One of the most influential, non- philanthropic intervention in the battle ever, eugenics drew fire. He shared his Mendelian theories of heredity was the for social survival – was replacing ideas on eugenics through correspon- Lamarckian concept of ‘acquired traits’, natural selection in human evolution.”86 dence with his cousin, the famous which claimed that an organism’s Social Darwinists believed that charity, Charles Darwin who “questioned environment could alter its ‘protoplasm’ social reform, and general human whether such superior individuals and that these newly acquired traits compassion had upset the natural order actually existed.”92 Apart from question- could be passed on to future generations. of biological action through ‘natural ing who is ‘fit’ and whether ‘fitness’ can As demonstrated in this dissertation’s selection’ and Herbert Spencer’s catch- be quantified, Darwin, in a 1873 letter to ‘Literature Review’, versions of this phrase explanation, ‘survival of the Galton, offered the scientific criticism theory persisted for many years in fittest’.87 Because of these actions, the that from the view of nature, the individ- countries like France and Russia. While ‘unfit’ were allowed to survive and in ual is unimportant compared to the British genetics largely embraced some cases flourish, while the ‘fit’ were race.93 Galton, however considered his Mendelian heredity, the Lamarckian forced to restrict their own propagation statistical studies as bridging the gap notion continued to appeal especially to in order to help the ‘unfit’. Crackan- between the individual and the race. those who worked towards social thorpe wrote in his 1907 monograph, Responding to criticism of his eugenic reform. Michael Guyer in the second Population and Progress, that due to the theories, Galton, in his 1901 Huxley edition of his 1916 work on childhood assistance of charitable institutions “the Lecture, wrote that eugenics occupies “a heredity definitively claims that “since rigour of ‘Natural Selection’ has been less dignified position in scientific surrounding influences are especially greatly relaxed. Assisted Selection, if I estimation than it might. It is smiled at as powerful on young and developing may so call it, has largely taken its most desirable in itself and possibly organisms, we should realize that great place.”88 He further explains that there worthy of academic discussion, but care must be exercised in behalf of the are three stages of evolutionary selec- absolutely out of the question as a young child to secure an environment tion: Natural Selection, Assisted Selec- practical problem.”94 Later in this same which is saturated with wholesome tion, and Purposive Selection. Darwin lecture, Galton reaffirmed his endorse- influences. For it is a rule of develop- had described the first form, the second ment of ‘positive eugenics’ as the most ment that if the environment is faulty the came about through the intervention of promising means to success, writing that organism is impaired.”84 Guyer was charity, and the third, which had the “the possibility of improving the race of implying that by improving the environ- potential to rebalance the natural order, a nation depends on the power of ment, the genetic make-up of a develop- could be achieved through eugenics.89 increasing the productivity of the best ing child improves. On the other hand, While this popular reasoning amongst stock. This is far more important than Kevles credits eugenics with casting “the eugenicists had the greatest impact on that of repressing the productivity of the light of science upon superstitions supporting ‘negative eugenics’, it also worst.”95 Until the early twentieth concerning conception, pregnancy, and contributed to the ‘positive eugenic’ idea century, however, no institutional

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 3 SEPTEMBER 2010 support for the advancement of eugenics often strained by differing interpretations The Galton Laboratory existed in Britain. It was merely present of Galton’s intentions. At best their in the theoretical studies of Galton and relationship was very complicated. In Founded in 1904, the Galton Labora- other eugenic-minded individuals.96 1950, Julia Bell, an early member of the tory grew out of the Biometrics Labora- Galton later explained in his memoirs Galton Laboratory, wrote to C.P. tory at University College London the lengthy delay between theorizing Blacker, Secretary of the Eugenics through a bequest by Francis Galton. His eugenics and acting upon it. “Popular Education Society, in an attempt to will and codicil set out the specifications feeling was not then ripe to accept even clarify years of tenuous dealings be- and duties for a Professor of Eugenics. the elementary truths of hereditary talent tween the two organizations. “I think Apart from collecting and analyzing and character, upon which the possibility there is no unfriendly feeling between data, the Professor would promote the of Race Improvement depends. Still less our laboratory and your Society, but knowledge of eugenics by “(a) Profes- was it prepared to consider dispassion- there is some difference in the relative sional instruction, (b) Occasional ately any proposals for practical action. weighting of our respective purposes and publications, (c) Occasional public So I laid the subject wholly to one side aims in accordance with the original lectures, (d) Experimental or observa- tional work which may throw light on for many years. Now I see my way intentions of Galton and of course their 104 better, and an appreciative audience is at difficulties in the early days arising from Eugenic problems”. Galton signifi- last to be had, though it be small.”97 This this very fact.”100 Indeed, from the very cantly dismissed political and social modest appraisal of his ‘appreciative conception of the two organizations, action from this list of duties and audience’, in fact, consisted of a growing their goals were different. Galton Pearson, director of the Biometrics number of eugenicists, social reformers, himself acknowledged this fact and Laboratory and Galton’s hand-picked biometricians, and geneticists centered relied on their differing objectives to Professor of Eugenics, made no attempt around two increasingly influential actualize his academic and social goals. to pursue these actions. In a 1910 organizations, the Galton Eugenics A particular incident in 1909 accentuates interview with The Standard, Pearson Laboratory at University College the feelings of Galton towards the described the activities of the Galton London and the Eugenics Education sometimes overlapping roles of the two Laboratory. “’The work [on eugenics], Society. By 1907, public awareness had organizations. In February 1909, Sybil as conducted there [UCL], falls into two increased so much that Karl Pearson Gotto (1887-1955), one of the founding departments: the older, or Biometric (1857-1936), a student of Galton’s and members of the Eugenics Education Department… and the more recent the first director of the Galton Labora- Society asked permission of members of Eugenics Laboratory” whose object is tory, wrote in a letter to Galton, “You the Galton Laboratory to publish their “scientific investigation, and as scientific would be amused to hear how general is lectures in the Eugenics Review, the investigators the staff do not attempt any now the use of your word Eugenics! I organ of the Eugenics Education form of propaganda. That must be left to hear most respectable middle class Society. Pearson, in a letter to Galton, outside agencies and associations. They matrons saying if children are weakly, expressed his reluctance to allow such a simply study the problems that appear to “Ah, that was not a eugenic marriage!”98 publication on the grounds that their be of social importance, examine the facts statistically, and publish the results Through the two British eugenics lectures were based on unfinished 105 organizations, eugenicists would even scientific studies which required comple- that flow from their analyses.” further popularize Galton’s theories. tion before publication in order to Pearson had been making his point about maintain academic integrity.101 Galton the role of the laboratory for years and had broken off relationships with other Eugenics Organizations in Britain replied that he would explain to the organizations in the past over it. In 1903, Eugenics Education Society that their for instance, Pearson had a spat with the Kevles credits the Galton Laboratory work is separate from that of the Labora- American eugenicist, Charles Davenport and the Eugenics Education Society with tory and that they must not utilize the lab over the issue of propaganda in scientific popularizing British eugenics which in such a way. The publications of the publications. Davenport was Pearson’s “derived energy from the organizational two organizations “are supplementary, co-editor of Biometrika, the organ of the efforts of its advocates.”99 Both groups and in no sense rivals. The Laboratory Biometrics Laboratory and later the derived their goals from the writings of gives the foundation, the Society the 102 Galton Laboratory, but a letter from Galton, though they played vastly Super-structure.” Pearson, apparently Davenport to Pearson foreshadowed the different roles in the promotion and content with Galton’s suggestion, wrote coming fallout as Davenport wrote that advancement of eugenics. The Galton back “I agree so wholly with what you he was glad he had an understanding in Laboratory took upon itself an uncom- say. There is need for the purely scien- which “you do not think our respective promising position as a scientific tific research, and for the propagan- 106 103 plans antagonistic”. Two years later, institution attempting to legitimize the dism.” This relationship between the in another letter to Pearson, Davenport new academic field of eugenics through two organizations is important for the cites their irreconcilable difference over theoretical study of human heredity. The development of ‘positive eugenics’ opinion and conjecture in the conclu- Eugenics Education Society, on the other because, from a very early stage, sions of published scientific articles in hand, controlled the national agenda on eugenicists saw it as one of the most Biometrika. Pearson wanted to hold social and legal applications of eugenics. promising forms of eugenics, but one biometry to a higher scientific standard, Through their publications, they central- which required further investigation to relying solely on the numbers to express ized eugenics and its proponents, who support a practical program. The the results of experiments.107 Davenport did not all come from the same back- following two sections will investigate offered his resignation and pursued his ground, nor did they agree on the the origins, leadership, and ‘positive objectives through his own institution, methods to be used. In fact, the relation- eugenics’ philosophy of the two organi- the Eugenics Records Office at Cold ship between the two organizations was zations.

SEPTEMBER 2010 4 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER Spring Harbor Laboratory. The signifi- positive eugenics proposals because of solidified objectives, instead favoring cance of this episode is that, whereas the the breadth of opinions regarding them. limited action until more scientific United States combined efforts between Some of this difficulty came from knowledge had been gained. In 1922, their academic and social organizations, centralizing their membership, which Charles Vickery Drysdale (1874-1961), Britain did not. Pearson’s main goals came from diverse backgrounds. This a prominent member of the Eugenics were not to enact eugenics but to issue became increasingly problematic Education Society, noted that “The establish it as an academic discipline. 108 as the Eugenics Society branches formed reluctance to act in advance of sufficient While the Galton Laboratory pursued across Britain and abroad including knowledge is wholly scientific and both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics London, Birmingham, Cambridge, praiseworthy, and is in sharp contrast to from a theoretical perspective, it put Manchester, Southampton, Liverpool, the behaviours of the generality of social forth no efforts to popularize or politi- Glasgow, and Sidney, Australia.116 reformers, whose zeal usually greatly cize either form of eugenics. The Regarding member support of specific outruns their discretion; yet it is a serious Eugenics Education Society was entirely styles of eugenics, C.P. Blacker recalled bar to the popularity of the Eugenics responsible for the pursuit of practical in 1950, “From the start, the idea of movement, as mankind is never satisfied programs and social propaganda. negative eugenics seemed to appeal to with purely academic or negative 121 people of a certain temperament and teaching concerning social problems.” The Eugenics Education Society109 outlook; that of positive eugenics to Yet, Drysdale still proposed no clear people otherwise constituted.”117 The practical measure for eugenics in this Following a meeting of the Committee only common trend in membership was article. Darwin tried to appease Drysdale of the Moral Education League in 1907, that its “activists were drawn almost and his allies in 1924 with some personal “a Provisional Council was elected to exclusively from the professional middle suggestions for practical eugenics. These draw up a constitution for a new Society class.”118 Furthermore, academia, suggestions included segregation of the to be called the ‘Eugenics Education 110 science, and medicine were more heavily mentally deficient, voluntary steriliza- Society.’” Upon approval of the represented than law and clergy.119 Their tion, education in ‘positive eugenics’ and Society’s rules “Mr. Francis Galton paid ambiguity towards ‘positive eugenics’ natural sciences, general Income Tax the Society the high compliment of could most readily be seen in the reform, and further study without action consenting to be its Honorary Presi- 111 decades-long debate over the wording of regarding alcohol, syphilis, and race dent.” From its inception the Eugenics the ‘Aims and Objects’ of the Society. mixing.122 In 1927, Darwin wrote that he Education Society espoused a broad Various drafts of the ‘Aims and Objects’ was aware of the desire for more spectrum of goals and objectives. The included nearly all the proposals intro- concrete goals but that he had reserva- Society wrote that it would achieve its duced by members. Apart from ‘Family tions in doing so because “I had always goals “by persistently setting forth, by Allowances’, ‘Taxation’, and felt that any move in this direction was oral and written teaching, the National ‘Education’, few proposals remained not without its dangers; for I feared it importance of Eugenics, educating part of the Society’s official policy for might reveal some serious differences public opinion, and creating a sense of any length of time. More than anything within our ranks and therefore do more the responsibility of the nation,” “by else, the leadership of two influential harm than good.”123 He continued by spreading a knowledge of the Laws of directors of the Eugenics Education stating that it would be wiser at that Heredity,” and “by denouncing as a Society held the group together. early point in eugenics to “concentrate crime against the future, parenthood on the attention of the public on the ends the part of the Diseased, the Insane, and 124 112 From 1911 to 1928, Leonard Darwin rather than on the exact means.” By the Habitually Alcoholic.” Their served as president of the Eugenics tabling the suggestion for more specific methods would include arranging Education Society. As one of the earliest goals for the Society he stunted the lectures, popularizing research results, presidents, much of Darwin’s charge organization’s political and legal actions, educating the young on eugenic princi- was to organize the eugenics movement but kept the Society’s options open for ples, opposing legislation “threatening to and set goals for its success. In Solo- future action when further study and impair the racial qualities of the Nation, way’s estimation, his leadership was internal unification would lead the way. while advocating measures having a “essentially defensive and reactive.”120 Because the members refrained from contrary object”, and forming a Lending While he entertained the broadest range pursuing particular goals, the Society Library.113 These sentiments were again 114 of suggestions from the fringes of the tended to have a broader range of voices echoed in their First Annual Report. eugenics movement, he also restricted and suggestions than other eugenics This loose set of objectives amounted to the official activities of the society to societies, including a persisting interest promoting and publicizing eugenic ideas, those issues of common interest through- in ‘positive eugenics’. One of his however, no distinct programs or out the group. He personally supported successors, C.P. Blacker, would take an eugenic goals were ever identified by ‘positive eugenic’ measures, but only entirely different approach to leading the their charter. In 1913, President of the officially endorsed those agreed upon by Society. Society, Leonard Darwin was still the Society. He carefully indicated when attempting to solidify an actual goal as he was writing opinion and when he was While Darwin brought many qualities he wrote, “Our problem is, therefore, acting in an official capacity. Still, as a to the Society such as a sense of leader- how to spread abroad this keen sense of 115 firm believer in both the ‘positive’ and ship, name recognition, respect, and racial responsibility.” In many ways, ‘negative’ aspects, he used his influence enthusiasm, he was not a scientist, and determining the details of their broad to keep ‘positive’ eugenics on the table his lay knowledge of heredity may have mission statement became the most for discussion and within the objectives contributed to his reluctance to pursue challenging task for the Eugenics of the organization. He often ignored particular programs. For example, in Education Society, particularly among calls by members to establish more 1911, Darwin wrote that altering an

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 5 SEPTEMBER 2010 environment had the possibility of changed his mind on the relative impor- towards ‘positive eugenics’. The altering the genetic make-up of future tance of ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ following section will discuss the generations, an idea which was largely eugenics. Where first Galton had numerous programs proposed by the overturned by the discovery of Mende- endorsed ‘positive eugenics’ as the more British eugenicists. lian genetics.125 Carlos Paton Blacker important of the two methods, he seemed (1895-1975), with his background in to reverse his opinion in a 1908 Nature Positive Eugenics Proposals science, had greater confidence when article, calling ‘negative eugenics’ the While the philosophical underpinnings dealing with the biology of eugenics. He more “pressing” concern.129 From the of the Eugenics Education Society served as General Secretary of the context of this statement, however, it is shifted on the issue of ‘positive eugen- Eugenics Society from 1931 to 1952, unclear if Galton was truly reversing his ics’, there were, nonetheless, nearly as and firmly supported ‘negative’ over position or simply acknowledging that many proposals for practical ‘positive ‘positive’ eugenics. As Soloway de- ‘negative eugenics’ worked on a shorter eugenics’ programs as there were scribed him, Blacker was “the aggressive time scale than ‘positive eugenics’. Even members supporting this line of eugen- architect of a reform eugenics that Blacker admitted that “it does not follow ics. The proposals, which met with focused on negative or restrictive that the most important things are the varying degrees of success and failure, policies, primarily birth control, taking most pressing”.130 In any case, Blacker could generally be consolidated as into account the need to weigh more did not view the ‘positive eugenics’ variations on a few themes: eugenic accurately the interaction between proposals as being well thought out. In certificates, recruitment of professionals, heredity and environment as it affected 1946, he wrote that these plans come financial incentives, education, opposi- the qualitative reproduction of people in across as “unrealistic, impracticable or tion to war, positive population growth, all classes.”126 Though Blacker and else insufficiently worked out in de- and birth control. The methods proposed Darwin came from vastly different tail.”131 Even with his more focused constitute both a promotion of ‘positive backgrounds and disagreed on the future objectives, Blacker met with resistance eugenics’ and a discouragement from direction of the Eugenics Society, they and criticism from some of the most actions detrimental to ‘positive eugenics’ still managed to form an alliance under prominent eugenicists. One of the first - what one might call ‘anti-positive the principle that eugenics studies were practical programs he proposed in 1931 eugenics’. The proposed measures often vital to the future of humanity. In fact, was legislation for a voluntary steriliza- supported each other’s objectives and, in on numerous occasions during his tion program. Pearson wrote a letter to some cases, were only viable as part of a tenure, Blacker sought and received Blacker in response to this program network of supporting ideas. In addition, congenial advice from Darwin on how to stating that, while he was “strongly in there were other proposed methods, such best lead the Society. Most of this advice favour of a bill legalising sterilisation of as providing adequate housing and centered on manipulating the Commit- the mentally defective,” no such pro- improving other environmental condi- tees and Councils of the Society and gram could be ‘voluntary’ because it tions to advance the positive develop- pacifying its fringe members. In one would result in the paradoxical situation 136 ment of children. It remains unclear letter from Darwin to Blacker in 1930, where “the man or woman whose mental whether these proposals were advocated Darwin warned the incoming General capacity is sufficient to give freely their under neo-Lamarckian assumptions or if Secretary that “You will have a good consent is clearly mentally capable of they were part of a general social reform many defective oars to row with; but as a taking other and less drastic precautions method to improve living conditions. In rule they should not be thrown away.” 127 against reproduction.”132 The Eugenics either case, however, these methods This statement in particular highlights Society, in an effort to explore possible would not fall directly under the cate- one of the main problems encountered ‘positive eugenics’ programs, formed a gory of ‘positive eugenics’, but would by the Eugenics Education Society. The Positive Eugenics Committee in 1934 to fall under a sort of ‘acquired-trait fringe members were a liability, but were investigate the successful measures eugenics’. also necessary to maintain membership taken in other countries, such as Ger-

numbers. In the same letter he acknowl- many and Italy.133 In an article from the Eugenic Certificates edged his reluctance to pursue a single Eugenics Review in 1936, the Positive objective for fear that it would leave Eugenics Committee concluded that the Long before the inception of the ‘positive eugenics’ in the background. issue is more complicated than antici- Eugenics Education Society, Galton had “It has been suggested lately, I think that pated and that their next step should be been making his own proposals for we should stick to one aim at a time. to determine why “biologically well- ‘positive eugenics’. In fact, his earliest This is a tendency I have had to resist on endowed persons are in effect sterilizing proposals were all of a ‘positive’ nature. several occasions…This method of themselves” by choosing not to have In the 1860s, while gathering data for his procedure would probably leave the children.134 When a proposal was Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton promotion of the fertility of the more fit introduced around 1937 to form a joint formulated the idea of a registry for always in the background, though it is, in venture with a Royal Commission to geniuses. His proposal was based on the my opinion, nearly at the top of the tree deal with the problems of ‘positive underlying principle that intelligence is in importance.”128 Where ‘positive eugenics’, Blacker, who was never a inherited - an idea he develops in this eugenics’ had clearly been an important strong supporter of ‘positive eugenics’, work.137 He had been gathering lists of part of Darwin’s agenda, Blacker was expressed his concern that should a geniuses, their immediate ancestors, and convinced that the more biologically Royal Commission be appointed, it those ancestors’ occupations. If intelli- potent method was ‘negative eugenics’. would ask for the Eugenics Education gence were inherited, then a register of In his 1952 monograph on the history of Society’s position and proposals on the all geniuses in Britain would yield a eugenics, Blacker justified his dismissal matter.135 His implication was that since viable list from which ‘positive eugenic’ of ‘positive eugenics’ because he the formation of the Society, they had matches could be made. In a letter from claimed that Galton, himself, had agreed on virtually no practical action 1873, Charles Darwin wrote to his

SEPTEMBER 2010 6 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER cousin, Francis Galton, that he ques- dysgenic couples from marrying or implementation of eugenic scholarships. tioned the feasibility of such a register. having children, Darwin was particularly Darwin notes that “the greatest diffi- in favor of recruiting them as ‘positive Since income tax was levied primar- culty, I think, would be in deciding who eugenicists’. In a 1933 letter from ily on the middle classes, eugenicists deserved to be on the register.”138 In Darwin to Blacker, Darwin espoused the theorized that reducing the rate of the tax conjunction with his registry, Galton importance of elevating the role of would help finance child-rearing among proposed a system of marriage certifi- ‘positive eugenics’ in medicine writing, the ‘fit’. Sybil Gotto, in a 1917 article in cates which would be used to encourage “We must teach the medical profession the Eugenics Review specifically claims people with top qualities to marry and to be eugenic advisers, and not mere that “income tax should be graded 148 have children. In an incomplete manu- experts about defects, however important inversely to the size of the family.” script on race improvement circa 1888, that side may be.”143 Darwin felt that Generally, the Eugenics Education Galton elaborates on the incorporation of there was an imbalance in the perceived Society agreed with the sentiment that marriage certificates into society. importance of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ such tax breaks should only be offered “Popular opinion would perhaps in time eugenics by medical professionals, and for families. Their assurance to the lower approve of the marriage of the certifi- that, if left to chance, ignoring ‘positive classes was that unmarried men and cated, and more or less condemn that of eugenics’ might do much harm to the women from the middle would shoulder the clearly unfit. It is quite possible that overall effect of eugenics. In the 1930s, the burden of the tax reductions for then certificates might ultimately ‘health examinations before marriage’ middle class families. Through this produce a decided effect in favourably became an objective under the heading method, no further hardships would be 149 modifying the present haphazard system ‘Positive Eugenics’ in the “Aims and put on the lower classes. Not only of marriage.”139 Galton again returned to Objects of the Eugenics Society”.144 This would the Income Tax reform encourage this idea in a 1906 manuscript on was not the first time, however that the marriage and reproduction, it would also ‘eugenic certificates’. This time certifi- Eugenics Society had sought the in- reprimand members of the ‘professional cates would be given out as social proof volvement of professionals. In 1917, middle class’ for remaining single or not that one was “distinctly superior in R.A. Fisher (1890-1962) had suggested having children. Furthermore, the early Eugenic Gifts to the majority of those in that the Eugenics Education Society seek Income Tax reforms proposed to draw a a similar social position.”140 Galton even the assistance of the professional distinction between inherited wealth and goes so far as to list the conditions of societies to measure eugenic fitness earned wealth so as to further favor those awarding these certificates: that the since they would have the authority and who obtain wealth through their own 150 awardees be men between 23 and 30 knowledge to decide who is ‘fit’ within intellectual accomplishments. years of age from the educated classes, their societies. Fisher, therefore, sug- that accomplishments cited for awarding gested that eugenicists would support the By the 1920s, the Income Tax reform the certificates be on record and verifi- development of trade unions and measures had been altered, and another able, and that consideration should also professional societies.145 Unfortunately solution, ‘family allowance’, was be given to the achievements of his for Fisher, his suggestion, while pub- gaining support. The strongest proponent immediate kin.141 Though Galton’s lished in the Eugenics Review, did not of the ‘family allowances’ was its proposals continually met with opposi- receive support from the overall commu- pioneer, the feminist campaigner, tion regarding the subjectivity of such nity. Eleanor Rathbone (1872-1946). In 1924, awards, a number of members in the she published The Disinherited Family Eugenics Education Society did support Financial Incentives which argued that mothers should be measures to supply health certificates to paid directly and in proportion to the The most universally accepted and individuals before marriage in an effort number of children they had. She pursued proposals, which were also to educate them as to their eugenic claimed that women remained dependant arguably the most successful, were those potential.142 These proposals began as a result of all tax rebates being which supported financial incentives for appearing in the earliest days of the awarded to males. With regard to ‘positive eugenic’ action. From the Eugenics Education Society and contin- eugenics, Rathbone cites topics of earliest days of the Eugenics Education ued though the 1930s. To eschew interest to eugenicists such as birth rate, Society, most members agreed that criticism for lack of objectivity, the nationalism, and birth control, though decreasing the financial burden of Society would need to establish a she never mentions eugenics by name. parenthood for the professional middle She discusses their effects on the scientific method for determining whom classes would stimulate the growth of to support with marriage certificates. To quantity and quality of births and sharply that class. By his first Presidential do so, they relied on the qualifications of criticizes the propagandists who abuse Address in 1911, Leonard Darwin was professionals. these causes to distract the public from already discussing its advantages for the facts of motherhood and the financial both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenic 151 Recruitment of Professionals 146 plight of women. In her introductory ends. Again in his 1913 Presidential essay to the reprinted edition of One of Leonard Darwin’s personal Address, Darwin noted that the Eugenics Rathbone’s work, Suzie Fleming contributions to supporting ‘positive Education Society’s discussions had examines Rathbone’s relationship with eugenics’ was his persistent recruiting of concluded that lowering taxes and the eugenics movement stating that, in medical professionals as new members raising wages would facilitate eugenic 147 the “atmosphere that the widespread of the eugenics movement. While there reform. For many years following eugenics debate engendered, women had been numerous attempts by mem- these discussions, members of the generally used the terminology of bers of the Eugenics Society to propose eugenics movement put forth significant eugenics to put their case, and Rathbone that medical professionals should act as efforts towards Income Tax reform, was no exception.”152 In essence, she ‘negative eugenicists’, discouraging creation of ‘family allowances’, and claims that Rathbone engaged in the

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 7 SEPTEMBER 2010 eugenics debate because that was the Finally in 1936, the Positive Eugenics results, a fact of which many members of dominant language of the time for Committee found that “it would be a the Eugenics Society were becoming discussing reformist causes. Furthermore, mistake of the first magnitude to suppose keenly and disappointingly aware. Fleming describes Rathbone’s distaste for that no more is needed than to smooth the “those eugenicists concerned at the path to parenthood by removing the Opposition to War falling birth rate as being politically disabilities under which parents suffer. If Not all ‘positive eugenics’ programs motivated by the ambition that the married couples are to have children, they were designed to encourage the ‘fit’ to Anglo-Saxon race should dominate the must desire them; they cannot be bribed breed more. Some proposals, such as the world.”153 Though her book made no into parenthood.”159 Despite this admis- opposition to war, discouraged measures mention of the eugenicists, she did attend sion, the Eugenics Society again at- which were dysgenic. This eugenic anti- Eugenics Education Society meetings. In tempted to garner support for a program war sentiment became particularly 1925, Rathbone spoke to the Eugenics of financial incentives on behalf of prominent during and immediately Society in support of increased govern- ‘positive eugenics’. A ‘scholarship’ following the First World War. The ment expenditures to achieve a ‘living proposal was put forth in 1946 which position of many members of the Eugen- wage’ as well as a ‘family allowance’ for would pay parents who had two or three ics Education Society was that the best skilled workers.154 During the vigorous exceptional children to have a third or 160 soldiers were placed on the line and discussion following her talk, the ‘family fourth child. Blacker wrote that this because of their superior courage and allowance’ clearly comes out as a new program came on the coattails of the physical abilities, often led the charges divisive topic among the eugenics Nazi eugenics program. He felt that for during war. In many cases the military community with one member exclaiming any British eugenics program to be rejected the ‘unfit’ from even participat- that “what we have heard put forward successful it would have to be tactful and ing in war, allowing them to remain here, is what we have heard during the not relatable in any way to Nazi eugen- behind and contribute their genes to past twenty years” and with another ics.161 Distance from Nazi eugenics was future generations. As a result, those member even accusing Rathbone of being not enough, however, and the new wounded soldiers who returned from the 155 program found little support. a Socialist. line represented the ‘fit’ in society and

local communities were encouraged to Education recognize them as such, so they could Despite these conflicts, Income Tax Another category of programs which marry and have children.164 The Eugenics reform and ‘family allowances’ made seemed to receive perennial support from Society was particularly concerned that great legislative strides, and in 1928, members of the Eugenics Education physical disfigurement from war might R.A. Fisher wrote an article assessing the Society was ‘positive eugenic’ education. render the ‘fittest’ members of society effects of the legislation. Although In Britain, where Parliament passed few unappealing to women. In the years eugenicists had achieved the goals of legislative controls for eugenics, educa- leading up to World War II, opposition to Income Tax reform, restructured to tion and propaganda became key tools for war again became a position of the proportionally offer rebates based on the eugenics movement. Members of the Eugenics Society. Versions of the “Aims family size, Fisher reported that “In about Eugenics Education Society saw this and Objects of the Eugenics Society” thirty years, more or less, with our method as essential to the success of both from the 1930s described ‘war’ as present birth-rate, whatever is worth the ‘positive’ and the ‘negative’ means of “dysgenic – (1) because the persons most keeping in the genetic potentialities of the eugenics. Their plan involved teaching likely to be killed in wars are above the upper and middle classes, in England and young people both the principles of physical average: (2) because war and the Scotland, will have been reduced to half 156 heredity and those specific to eugenics. prospects of war deter from parenthood its present quantity.” The problem, as They hoped that this would normalize parents who take into account the well- Fisher assessed it, was that they had eugenics and allow it to become a part of being of their children.”165 These senti- overestimated the influence of economics an everyday eugenic-mindedness of the ments were not shared by all members of on ‘positive eugenics’. Nevertheless, entire population. Furthermore, they the Eugenics Society, however. Follow- Fisher supported further measures to would encourage eugenic ideas, such as ing the inclusion of ‘War’ in the “Aims provide increased family allowances. early marriage, spacing births, and having and Objects of the Eugenics Society”, Dr. Leonard Darwin, in a 1933 letter to large families. In 1917, Sybil Gotto Langdon-Down presented a counter- Blacker, supported Fisher’s efforts endorsed these measures, writing “The opinion in a 1936 memorandum. His towards increased family allowances need for encouraging early marriage and greatest fear regarding ‘opposition to writing that “sixty years thought… has parenthood among the efficient cannot be war’ was that the Eugenics Society was made me thoroughly agree with Galton in too strongly advocated.”162 Another spreading itself too thin and embracing regarding the differentiated birth rate as a member of the Eugenics Society, Byron too many causes “on which we claim no factor of the very highest importance; and S. Bramwell (1977-1949), described the special right to speak” and “of which we I have argued strongly in favour of importance of early marriage in a 1937 can take no effective action as a body”.166 Fisher’s view that family allowances article for the Eugenics Review. He In a response letter to the Eugenics constitute one of the most important ways promoted marriage at a younger age for Society, D. Caradog Jones, a statistician of counteracting this danger if, but only 157 the professional classes noting that “even at the University of Liverpool, wrote that if, framed on right lines.” He then if no larger families resulted, the space “War is one of the major forces subject to ended the letter by criticizing Rathbone’s between generations would be lessened human control that is capable of affecting lack of eugenic concern, stating that she and this would in the long run be a gain the future population immediately and seemed “only to seek eugenic help to to the community.”163 This relatively appreciably; for the flower of the human push family allowances with social 158 passive measure would take countless race, potential parents in the prime of objects in view.” generations to produce any quantifiable their manhood, can be cut off by a great

SEPTEMBER 2010 8 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER war in the space of a comparatively few and an “anti-positive eugenic’ measure. inception of eugenics and the end of the months. Therefore, I do not think the Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) elaborated Second World War. Initially, ‘positive Society ought to shirk the issue of on this issue in a 1917 article describing eugenics’ was Galton’s primary method expressing an opinion upon the sub- birth control, from the eugenic point of for describing humanity’s potential to ject.”167 The Eugenics Society publicly view, as appearing dysgenic since it shape its own evolution. In the earliest published ‘opposition to war’ as part of improves social conditions but presuma- days of the Eugenics Education Society, its objectives but there was never consen- bly is implemented more by the intellec- ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics had sus among its members. tual class than the lower classes.170 roughly equal standing in the Society. Whether or not eugenicists endorsed birth Generally, eugenicists saw the two styles Positive Population Growth control was largely dependant upon their of eugenics as complementing each other. One of the fears that war added to the political views and upon which style of By eliminating the ‘unfit’, the ‘fit’ had pre-existing alarm over population eugenics, ‘positive’ or ‘negative’, they more opportunity and resources to decline was that a generally lower British felt held the greatest potential. In the dedicate to their own reproduction. As population might be vulnerable to 1930s, however, the “Aims and Objects the ‘fit’ increased the size of their gene destruction by invading forces. As a of the Eugenics Society”, the Society pool, the ‘unfit’ had less genetic influ- result the more patriotic eugenicists often endorsed birth control “by persons of ence on future generations. However, endorsed a ‘positive population growth’. superior biological endowment only with whereas many of the ‘negative eugenics’ Though not entirely a ‘positive eugenic’ a view to spacing births”.171 By spacing proposals could operate independently of measure, supporters of ‘positive popula- births, eugenicists believed that parents each other and could affect future tion growth’ often phrased their concerns were offering the best chances for generations by action on a single individ- in a nationalistic, ‘positive eugenic’ survival and development to each child. ual, the ‘positive eugenics’ proposals rhetoric. In his notes on a proposed In this sense, birth control acted as both a often relied on working together as a ‘positive population’ policy by Eugenics tool of both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ united concept which produced slow Society member Alexander Carr- eugenics, and it often appeared under a change over a long period. This fact Saunders, Leonard Darwin described his separate heading for both styles in contributed to an overall trend towards reaction to the plan. “By a positive Eugenics Society literature. ‘negative eugenics’. There remained population policy is meant, I presume, a fervent supporters of ‘positive eugenics’, scheme aiming at an increase in numbers Characterization of Practical Tech- and even those who supported ‘negative without any reference to quality. In niques eugenics’ never particularly disliked ‘positive eugenics’, they simply saw it as contrast to this, a positive eugenic policy One of the most striking aspects of the a distraction from the more effective and may be held to mean a scheme aiming at techniques proposed in support of immediate solution of ‘negative eugen- a relative increase in the numbers of ‘positive eugenics’ is the diversity with ics’. In 1917, Havelock Ellis presented those with superior natural endowments. which it took form. Following the logic his case for support of ‘positive eugenics’ If we hold that our race is superior to the that the ‘professional middle classes’ through ‘negative eugenics’. “The two black and the yellow races, a positive contained the best genes, nearly all fundamental eugenic aims – more urgent eugenic policy does on this account aspects of life affecting their reproductive to-day than they have ever been before – necessitate paying some attention to our ability could be argued in ‘positive 168 are to impede the production of bad total numbers.” By expanding the eugenics’ terms. As Blacker wrote in his scope of ‘population’ to include all 1950 reflection on eugenics, “Certain stocks and to favour the production of people of the world, and not just the antitheses or dualities of standpoint came good stocks. The prevention of bad stocks may be put first, not only because British population, the argument for to be revealed among those who had it is the most promising line of progress, ‘positive population growth’ essentially assimilated Darwin’s reasoning, and who but because in itself it indirectly, and became an imperialistic form of ‘positive were conscious of the eugenic and eugenics’. Most Eugenics Society even directly, favours the development of dysgenic possibilities confronting the 173 172 the good stocks.” While this may members did not agree with this line of human race.” Among these divisions in appear to suggest that ‘positive’ and reasoning. eugenics, the most problematic with ‘negative’ eugenics remained on equal regard to ‘positive’ eugenics were the Birth Control standing and that efficiency alone differences between (1) ‘positive’ and dictated a preference towards one over A final ‘positive eugenic’ issue which ‘negative’ eugenics and the traits they was frequently a topic of debate among considered, (2) direct and indirect the other, Blacker recalled that “from the members of the Eugenics Society but on eugenic influence, (3) compulsory and start, the idea of negative eugenics seemed to appeal to people of a certain which the Eugenics Society rarely offered voluntary submission to eugenics, and (4) temperament and outlook; that of positive an official position was ‘birth control’. legislation and personal responsibility. eugenics to people otherwise consti- Soloway writes that Darwin avoided the Other dualities which had less bearing on tuted.” 174 issue of birth control through much of his ‘positive eugenics’ included authoritarian

presidency “helped by the knowledge that and liberal influence, class and race An important factor in the eventual most of the men and women in the divisions, and the separation of theory divergence of ‘positive eugenics’ and Eugenics Education Society still consid- from practice in eugenics. ‘negative eugenics’ may have been the ered any public discussion of birth control distasteful.”169 Birth control was traits their supporters investigated. As Positive’ and ‘Negative’ Eugenics Kevles notes, an underlying principle that not only a tricky issue because of its Overlap and Divergence obvious political implications, but also determined which traits eugenicists because support for birth control consti- The relationship between ‘positive’ and considered was that “heredity determined tuted both a ‘negative eugenic’ measure ‘negative’ eugenics changed between the not simply physical characteristics but

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 9 SEPTEMBER 2010 temperament and behavior.”175 Still, German eugenics, which was especially ‘Positive Eugenics’ and Other Societies eugenics largely based its analysis of ‘fit’ relevant to ‘positive eugenics’, was the and Movements and ‘unfit’ upon statistical studies which Eugenics Society’s view of compulsory While the Eugenics Education Society determined average, below average, and and voluntary programs. Since the itself generally retained organizational above average ranges for traits. For this beginning of the Eugenics Education distance from other Societies and reason, Leonard Darwin remarked that Society, it members had repeatedly movements, its membership often “No doubt the ability to make a good included some form of the qualifier contained a great deal of overlap. In some living is not the most important of human “being careful not to endorse compul- cases the eugenics movement was the qualities; but it is important, and more- sion” when discussing legislative meas- secondary affiliation of members. These over it is found to be associated with ures for eugenics.179 Charles Drysdale, in underlying cross-movement affiliations other good qualities.”176 In addition, 1922, likened compulsion to the German contributed greatly to the divisions in ‘ability to make a good living’ was Race Hygienists, remarking that if motive, goal, and endorsement of quantifiable. By removing ‘inherited replicated in Britain, it “would damn the proposed eugenic actions discussed by wealth’ and focusing solely on earned Eugenic movement.”180 The British the Eugenics Education Society. Some income, Darwin suggested that one could eugenics movement struggled to express historians, such as Soloway, have quantify the ‘fit’. Unfortunately for ‘negative eugenics’ in practicable suggested that the members of the Darwin, many liberal eugenicists dis- voluntary terms. Conversely, ‘positive Eugenics Society took a negative view agreed with his pro-capitalist assessment eugenics’ proposals were typically towards institutional involvement with of the ‘fit’. In 1949, Blacker wrote that voluntary both in Britain and abroad. In other societies, however it seems that the “sound physical health, intelligence, his analysis of Britain’s Inter-War general sentiment of the eugenicists was social usefulness, freedom from genetic voluntary sterilization proposal, MacNi- that as the two causes were not in conflict taints, and philoprogenitiveness are five col identifies the impetus for a voluntary, with one another, eugenics might prosper desirable qualities. Of these, intelligence rather than the more effective involun- 185 from their relationship. In fact, some is the only one which is accurately tary, programme as coming from a members felt that involvement with other measurable.”177 Disregarding the degree pursuit of ideology over practicality.1 societies would allow them to infuse to which intelligence was accurately eugenic ideas into the theoretical basis measureable, the physically and mentally for other causes. Fisher, for example, ‘defective’ traits examined by ‘negative Legislation and Personal Responsibility wrote that, “There is scarcely any eugenics’ were simply more identifiable A final characterization of the practical movement of social life with which the and more quantifiable than those exam- ‘positive eugenics’ techniques is that they eugenic movement is not closely con- ined under ‘positive eugenics’. tended towards reliance on personal cerned and in which understanding responsibility rather than legislation. This eugenic principles does not give a deeper Direct and Indirect issue might be seen as an extension of the insight and a more lively interest. compulsory/voluntary issue. In general Particularly is this the case with what has Another stylistic difference among the British eugenics movement relied come to be called Positive Eugenics.” 186 ‘positive eugenics’ proposals was more heavily than elsewhere on the belief When Blacker set out to form a Joint between those which acted directly to that its citizens wanted to be responsible Committee to deal with the problems of increase the population of the ‘fit’ and and would fulfill their duty to race ‘positive eugenics’ around 1937, he those which indirectly acted on the development if asked. In the United proposed a list of about twenty organiza- causes preventing the ‘fit’ from breeding. States and Germany, where ‘negative tions which the Eugenics Society might In 1917, Fisher’s article “Positive eugenics’ took stronger root, legislation approach for help.187 Eugenics” amounted to an endorsement provided for coercive eugenics. In her of the problem that getting people to 1917 article, Gotto credited the war with Among the most significant societies breed is harder than getting them to not 178 initiating a resurgence of duty and with overlapping goals and membership breed. Apart from ‘education’ and the responsibility in the British population, were the Malthusians and the public issuance of ‘health certificates’ which thus allowing eugenics to move forward sanitation and hygiene movement. One of might be considered a direct method of without the necessity of legislation.182 the earliest movements with which the ‘positive eugenics’, the other major They found, however, that appealing to a eugenicists found noteworthy overlap categories of ‘positive eugenics’, the sense of moral duty simply wasn’t an was the Malthusian League. Individuals concept of financial incentives, opposi- effective ‘negative eugenics’ campaign with an interest in declining birthrate tion to war, and restriction of birth measure. Conversely, it was the only regularly participated in both Societies. control, all acted indirectly to remove direct measure in support of ‘positive They both believed in controlled popula- barriers preventing the propagation of eugenics’. The Eugenics Society did tion growth, but where the Malthusians ‘fit’ genes. At the same time most of the support indirect legal measures towards were concerned more with the resources ‘negative eugenics’ programs acted eugenics ends, such as the proposed of population growth, the eugenicists directly to prevent the ‘unfit’ from legislation for financial reforms which were concerned with the genetic health of breeding. For this reason, ‘positive began in 1917 with discussions in the population. Neither Society objected eugenics’ may have appeared less Parliament and continued through the to a controlled increase in the population effective. 1920s and 1930s.183 They also monitored through ‘positive eugenics’. Likewise the other parliamentary bills and editorialized sanitation reform movement shared 184 Compulsory and Voluntary their opinions through the newspapers. membership as well as overlapping goals Legislation was never a significant part with the eugenicists. In 1913, Leonard An important distinction between of the Eugenics Society’s objectives, Darwin compared the campaign for British eugenics and American or however. eugenic reform to sanitation reform,

SEPTEMBER 2010 10 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER stating that what social reformers have vigorously advocated new policies of summately condemned eugenics. While done for people’s environment, the negative eugenics based upon sterilisa- this was the official position of the eugenicists were doing for their genet- tion, and, far more important, birth Church, eugenicists often argued that ics.188 This relationship was not always control.”193 As an indication of the local clergy were not all so quick to convivial, however. As ‘negative eugen- position taken by the majority of the dismiss eugenics. In fact, the Eugenics ics’ took stronger hold in the Eugenics Eugenics Society, Stopes was considered Education Society at times attempted to Society more of its members saw sanita- a controversial figure, not because of her use religious rhetoric to convert the tion reform as contributing to the growth endorsement of compulsory programs, faithful to the eugenic point of view. In a of the lower classes. but because of her endorsement of birth 1920 article in the Eugenics Review, an control. In the 1930s, a number of appeal on religious terms was made. A more tentative and often strained attempts were made to “establish a basis “Ethically, eugenicists claim that the relationship formed between the eugeni- of agreement between National Birth motto of Christianity, that we should do cists and the feminists, the birth control Control Association and the Eugenics to others as we would be done by, should movement, and the political left. At times Society.”194 They agreed upon common be interpreted as having application also the eugenics movement seemed to positions, such as the national birth rate to out relations with future generations, support feminism and at other times it in the UK was continually declining, a our duty to which ought to influence in rejected feminist ideals. MacKenzie lower and more controlled population in many ways the dispositions we make in describes the conflicting opinions as a England would be optimal, and contra- the present.”197 It is questionable whether desire to have women “return to their ception information should be more the argument, phrased in this manner, traditional roles and stop ‘shirking’ available for the purposes of spacing ever convinced anyone from either side. motherhood” on the one hand, and a births, aiding women’s health, and desire for the benefits of financial informing economically and hereditarily Objections to ‘Positive Eugenics’ independence in women which would unfit parents. It did not, however, elicit Disregarding the opinions of outside allow them to select a father for their much agreement among members of the organizations, members from within the children based on biological, rather than Eugenics Society. In a 1936 letter to Eugenics Society suggested many of their financial, superiority.189 Likewise, the Blacker, eugenicist and committee on own objections to ‘positive eugenics’. feminists at times supported and at times birth control member Stella Churchill When Leonard Darwin first set out to lay rejected the theories of eugenics. In 1920, expressed her dissatisfaction with the groundwork for the ‘positive eugenics’ for example, an article by the League for one-sidedness of the relationship between program as President of the Eugenics the Removal of the Tax on Marriage the movements by writing that “I have Education Society, he was clear in appeared in the Daily Express calling on visited a great many birth control clinics identifying it as a long-term method of feminists to oppose the ‘tax on marriage’ which are presumably connected with eugenics. Preemptively confronting the which was creating financial hardships this organisation. I have not usually concerns of doubters in his 1913 address for women and would-be mothers.190 This found much, if any, eugenic teaching at “The Eugenic Ideal”, Darwin rhetorically article along with an explanatory letter such clinics, and I think if any amalgama- questioned what is ideal and how long it was sent by the League’s organizer, tion is to take place this aspect should be will take to see eugenic effects. He Marie C. Stopes (1880-1958), to the discussed.”195 Though such conflicts over responded, “The better plan is rather to Eugenics Education Society asking them birth control punctuated Stopes’ involve- copy the example set by Nature, and to to circulate the article to their member- ment with the Eugenics Society, she advance by one small step at a time, thus ship since their stance was “essentially a remained a life-long member, never ensuring that some little racial progress eugenic proposition to protect the middle wavering in her support for birth control. will certainly be made as generation class against this iniquitous interference 198 succeeds generation.” While he with their likelihood of having means to One group of eugenicists with whom sustained the patience necessary to wait support children.”191 the birth control movement found favor many generations for results, many was the liberals and the political leftists. members of the Eugenics Society began Perhaps a more significant role played This group also contained some of the to feel disillusioned by the lack of by Stopes was as proponent of birth strongest support for ‘positive eugenics’. immediate results from ‘positive eugen- control through the National Birth Kevles characterizes “the most vigorous ics’. The opposition to ‘positive eugen- Control Association, which also saw advocates of positive eugenics in the ics’ rose out of the very questions he was significant overlap in membership with United States and Britain after the turn of hoping to avoid by his address: What the eugenicists. Stopes approached birth the century” as “social radicals, many of constituted ideal? and How long before control as a result of her previous them inclined to utopian visions.”196 They there would be results? In addition, involvement in the Eugenics Society and surmised that as long as economic factors ‘positive eugenics’ had to contend with the Malthusian League, as the common and the class system governed society, a the rising appeal of ‘negative eugenics’ problem these organizations faced was biologically based eugenics program and development of a new scientific differential birth rates and overpopula- would remain corrupted. Some members faction of eugenics which rejected the tion.192 Concerning her views towards of this faction supported ‘negative claims of ‘positive eugenics’. ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ eugenics, eugenics’ and others condemned it,

Soloway writes, “While she certainly however nearly all of them supported The question of what ‘fit’ meant had promoted positive eugenic policies ‘positive eugenics’. plagued the eugenics movement since encouraging the most highly evolved men Charles Darwin first responded to and women to increase the number of A perpetual thorn in the side of the Galton’s proposal of a register for their progeny, she was a also one of a eugenics movement, religious groups, geniuses in 1873. In an attempt to clarify growing number of eugenicists who particularly the Catholic Church, con- the meaning of ‘fit’ for the nascent

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 11 SEPTEMBER 2010 Eugenics Education Society, Montague in mind, they proposed an increasing identified some of the reasons that Crackanthorpe wrote in 1908, “By the political distance from capitalism, which ‘positive eugenics’ was more prolific in ‘right people’ I mean not those who, in they felt corrupted the influence of Britain than elsewhere. There was a great Herbert Spencer’s phrase, are the ‘fittest biology in eugenic studies, and they deal of flexibility in its programs, so that to survive,’ but those who give the most largely dismissed ‘positive eugenics’ as they could graft onto other social move- promise of ‘civic worth,’ that is to say, being less biologically significant. As ments fairly easily. Confusion over the will be most likely to be at once useful to early as the late 1910s, geneticists like aims and objectives of the Eugenics themselves in the way of enjoyment and R.A. Fisher compared their role in the Education Society led to more opportu- self-support, and also useful to the eugenics movement to separating quacks nity for the proposal of ‘positive eugen- community at large.”199 The nominal from physicians, in essence bringing ics’ programs. The minimal amount of amount of clarification ascertained by professionalism and science to eugen- legislation and interest in coercive this redefinition of ‘fit’ did nothing to ics.203 Leaders of this movement such as practices supported ‘positive eugenics’ as assuage doubters. Searle reports on the Lancelot Hogben (1895-1975) and Julian it was generally of a voluntary nature. much more straightforward response by Huxley (1887-1975) feared that ethnic, At the same time, ‘positive eugenics’, Saleeby in 1909. “Thus, a common view racial, and class differentiation were at while more successful in Britain, was among eugenicists was that again the basis of the mainstream movement generally not a successful tactic. Reasons expressed by Saleeby: ‘we may not know and that these divisions had little to do for this include the difficulty of identify- what worth is, but we can all recognize with genetic differences.204 Kevles ing ideal traits, the slow progression of “unworth”’; hence, it was better to identifies the impact of their ideas within ‘positive eugenics’, an increasing appeal concentrate on ‘negative eugenics’.”200 the eugenics movement. “The knowledge of ‘negative eugenics’, and a reduced This common sentiment, that it was they injected into public discourse view of the effectiveness of ‘positive easier to identify and quantify ‘unfit’ combined with the lay dissent to form a eugenics’ based on biological findings. traits, led to a general assumption that corrosive and increasingly effective case Partly because it was unsuccessful, it has ‘negative eugenics’ would be simpler to against the authority of mainline eugen- escaped evaluation by many historians. enact than ‘positive eugenics’. Equally ics.”205 Furthermore, they effectively The subtlety of the programs may have problematic for proponents of ‘positive eliminated any chance for political contributed to its hidden influence. Its eugenics’ was the timescale on which it eugenics action by either ‘negative’ or programs relied mainly on indirect operated. Best estimates by geneticists ‘positive’ measures. methods of affecting the reproductive rate suggested that several generations of of the ‘fit’. For example, what could selective breeding would be required to historically be viewed as Income Tax produce a positive effect in the overall Conclusion reform was, to eugenicists, removal of a population. The concept of waiting a financial barrier to encouraging more couple of hundred or thousand years for During and following World War II, children in middle class families. It was results was a hard sell, even by the most opposition to ‘positive eugenics’ rose and less obvious when ‘positive eugenics’ gifted of propagandists. as it got pushed to the periphery of the was being implemented and it was eugenics movement, British citizens largely discussed internally by eugeni- Among those who supported ‘negative banished the eugenic movement to the cists rather than by the general public, as eugenics’ over ‘positive eugenics’ there periphery of social action. Since the first ‘negative eugenics’ was. Finally, was a fundamental belief that eugenics eugenics investigations, however, ‘positive eugenics’ relied on a sense of should behave as a rational method for ‘positive eugenics’ was a part of the personal responsibility and moral duty, a rebalancing ‘natural selection’. As eugenic theory and, throughout the position which could easily be dismissed Drysdale described in his 1922 article for Eugenics Education Society’s history, it by those opposed to eugenics. In the first the Eugenics Review, evolution acts in played a large role in shaping its policies half of the twentieth century in Britain, nature based on the principles of and objectives. If nothing else, most eugenics formed a biological and social 201 ‘negative eugenics’. Furthermore, he members of the Society followed the paradigm for its followers, and ‘positive claimed that eugenic theorists had philosophy that ‘every bit helps’, and as eugenics’ was one aspect of this para- insufficient knowledge to pursue a Soloway writes, “To a person who digm. meaningful ‘positive eugenics’ pro- believed human heredity was an incre- 202 gram. When evidence of a continually mental process, even a slight shift in the Limitations of This Dissertation and declining population was found, despite qualitative contribution to future genera- Areas of Future Research the efforts of ‘positive eugenics’ to tions would in time prove to be statisti- Given a greater length of time to educate the ‘fit’, it further justified the cally and, consequently, biologically conduct research, there are numerous argument against its effectiveness. Most 206 significant.” The patience required to personal collections which might prove members of the Society sought a more pursue these results, however, was not a valuable to the study of ‘positive eugen- immediate solution in ‘negative eugen- virtue many members of the Eugenics ics’. One of the difficulties of this study ics’. Society possessed. was to determine the general opinions of the Eugenics Society. They attempted to By the 1930s, a new faction was This dissertation has shed light upon provide a voice for any eugenic-minded gaining prominence in the Society. The the largely hidden effect that ‘positive discussion, even for those on the fringe group was primarily made up of geneti- eugenics’ has had on the British eugenics and those who disagreed with eugenic cists from the left whose biological movement. In doing so, it has revealed theories. Consequently, it became studies had shown environment to have that ‘positive eugenics’ was broader and difficult to determine which opinions more influence on behavior than eugeni- more diverse than it has previously been were well received by the eugenics cists had previously believed. With that given credit. This dissertation has community and which were dismissed

SEPTEMBER 2010 12 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER quickly. This was complicated by the fact heritage brings new significance and 91Galton F. (1908)b, 323. that the Eugenics Education Society contradictions to the debate of eugen- 92Schwartz J. (2008), 25. officially pursued very few proposals. ics”.209 This is an area in which ‘positive 93Letter from Charles Darwin to Francis Perhaps by viewing the personal papers eugenics’, in particular, might have the Galton, 4 January 1873, in Pearson K. of other influential eugenicists such as potential for providing greater insight (1924), 176. R.A. Fisher, Lancelot Hogben, Julian than it has yet. 94Galton F. (1901), 659. Huxley, and others, one could make a 95Ibid., 663. 96 more well-rounded assessment of Anthony J. Dellureficio is an American MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 21-22. 97 ‘positive eugenics’. An additional who has previously worked at the Cold Galton F. (1908)b, 310. 98 difficulty of this project was to determine Spring Harbor Laboratory in the US. His Letter from Karl Pearson to Francis the national influence of the Eugenics personal interests have long been in the Galton, 20 June 1907. Galton Collection, Society in Britain. The Eugenics Review, scientific and social work of H.J. Muller, UCL Library Services, Special Collec- while a profound source for eugenic one of the few American ‘positive tions, 293H/1. 99 writings, only provides the view of the eugenicists’. Anthony believes that Kevles D.J. (1985), 59. 100 Eugenics Society. Research conducted on Muller developed his theories through Letter from Julia Bell to C.P. Blacker, articles from newspapers may provide an meetings with his friend Julian Huxley 3 December 1950. Wellcome Library, avenue for determining the public’s who was, of course, a Vice-President of SA/EUG/C.268 (AMS/MF/112). 101 overall awareness of ‘positive eugenics’. The Eugenics Society. Anthony has just Letter from Karl Pearson to Francis taken up the post of Systems Librarian Galton, 4 February 1909. Galton Collec- Apart from the above-mentioned for The New School in lower Manhattan. tion, UCL Library Services, Special solutions to the limitations of this The School was founded as a specialty Collections, 293K/1. 102 article’s research, there are two areas school in social sciences by British Letter from Francis Galton to Karl which hold particularly significant Fabians in the early 1900’s and became Pearson, 6 February 1909. Galton potential for future research. Based on the well known for bringing over European Collection, UCL Library Services, findings of this article, ‘positive eugen- scholars during World War II to what Special Collections, 293K/1. 103 ics’ may have been much more promi- was called the ‘University in Exile’. Letter from Karl Pearson to Francis nent around the world than is given Galton, 7 February 1909. Galton Collec-

credit. Because of its subtle and indirect tion, UCL Library Services, Special nature, it may have been part of the References: Collections, 293K/1. paradigm behind many turn-of-the- 64Blacker C.P. (1950), 21. Searle G.R. 104Copy of “Probate of the Will and century social reform movements in the (1976), 73. Codicil of Sir Francis Galton,” Galton world. A comparative study of ‘positive 65Letter from Caleb Saleeby to Francis Collection, UCL Library Services, eugenics’ in Britain and abroad may yield Galton, 28 September 1909. Galton Special Collections, 131/1A, 3-4. significant results regarding the perva- Collection, UCL Library Services, 105“Eugenics. Prof. Karl Pearson on Its siveness of ‘positive eugenics’ in world- Special Collections, 310. Methods.” The Standard, 3 January 1910. wide eugenic practices. 66Crackanthorpe M. (1910), 7-8. Well- Galton Collection, UCL Library Services, come Library, SA/EUG/A.2. Special Collections, 131/1A. Another area of potential research is 67Letter from R. Austin Freeman to 106Letter from Charles Davenport to Karl the place of ‘positive eugenics’ in Blacker, 12 March 1939. Wellcome Pearson, 12 February 1901. Pearson modern bioethical debates. As described Library SA/EUG/D.5 (AMS/MF/113). Papers, UCL Library Services, Special in the introduction of this article with the 68Banks, J.A. (1954), 1. Collections, 674/1. advances in genetics and biotechnology, 69Davin A. (1978), 10. 107Letter from Charles Davenport to Karl eugenics has found resurgence in bio- 70MacNicol J. (1989), 147. Pearson, 7 July 1903, Pearson Papers, ethical debates. As Robert Sinsheimer 71Kevles D.J. (1985), 73. UCL Library Services, Special Collec- explains, “Today there is much talk about 72McLaren A. (1978), 141. tions, 674/1. the possibility of human genetic modifi- 73National Council of Public Morals 108Kevles D.J. (1985), 104. cation – of designed genetic change, (1916). 109Around the 1930s, the Eugenics specifically of mankind. A new eugenics 74Mazumdar P.M.H. (1992), 47. Education Society dropped the word has arisen, based upon the dramatic 75MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 27. ‘education’ from its name, becoming the increase in our understanding of the 76Ibid., 29. ‘Eugenics Society’. Throughout this biochemistry of heredity and our compre- 77Soloway R.A. (1995), xxi. paper, the names ‘Eugenics Education hension of the craft and means of 78McLaren A. (1978), 141. Society’ and ‘Eugenics Society’ appear evolution.”207 Even more recently Mai 79MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 41. with reference to the same society. and Angerami have raised questions of 80Darwin L. (1913)a, 6. 110Eugenics Education Society (1908)a, whether we can separate the strictly 81Darwin L. (1920), 216. 16. Wellcome Library, SA/EUG/A.1. biological from the social implications of 82Davin A. (1978), 13. 111Ibid. such genetic studies.208 They claim that 83Mazumdar P.M.H. (1992), 28-29. 112“The Eugenics Society” [memoranda the advent of improved genetics and 84Guyer M.F. (1927), 259. declaring its intent], c.1908. Wellcome biotechnology brings new meanings to 85Kevles D.J. (1985), 66. Library SA/EUG/B.1 (AMS/MF/146). eugenics. “A possibilidade de intervenção 86Ibid., 70. 113Ibid. direta sobre o patrimônio genético traz 87MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 40. 114Eugenics Education Society (1908)b, novos significados e contradições ao 88Crackanthorpe M. (1907), 6. 21. Wellcome Library, SA/EUG/A.1. debate em torno da eugenia [The possi- 89Ibid., 7. 115Darwin, L. (1913)a, 6. bility of direct intervention over genetic 90Carlson E. (2001), 234. 116Kevles D.J. (1985), 59.

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 13 SEPTEMBER 2010 117Blacker C.P. (1950), 16. 146Darwin L. (1911), 15-16. Wellcome the Formation of a Joint Committee to 118MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 23. Library, SA/EUG/A.3. Deal with the Problems of Positive 119Ibid., 24. 147Darwin L. (1913)b, 99. Eugenics,” 7. Wellcome Library, SA/ 120Soloway R.A. (1998), 53. 148Gotto, S. (1917), 187. EUG/D.163 (AMS/MF/114). 121Drysdale C.V. (1922), 103. 149Darwin L. (1920), 215. 188Darwin L. (1913)b, 99. 122Darwin L. (1924), 595-596. 150Ibid., 216-217. 189MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 42. 123Eugenics Education Society (1926),91. 151Rathbone E.F. (1986), 379. 190“League for Removal of the Tax on 124Ibid., 92. 152Fleming S. (1986), 30. Marriage,” 28 April 1920, Daily Express, 125Darwin L. (1911), 8. Wellcome 153Ibid., 30. London. Wellcome Library SA/EUG/K.1 Library, SA/EUG/A.3. 154Rathbone, E.F. (1925), 271. Box 73. 126Soloway R.A. (1998), 54. 155Eugenics Education Society (1925), 191Letter from Marie C. Stopes to Con- 127Letter from Leonard Darwin to C.P. 283. stance Brown (Eugenics Education Blacker, 17 October 1930, 2. Wellcome 156Fisher R.A. (1928), 81. Society), 4 May 1920. Wellcome Library Library PP/CPB B.1/1. 157Letter from Leonard Darwin to C.P. SA/EUG/K.1 Box 73. 128Ibid., 2. Blacker, 5 July 1933, 1. Wellcome 192Peel J.(1997), 3. Soloway R.A.(1997), 129Galton F. (1908)a, 646. Library PP/CPB B.1/2. 50. 130Blacker C.P. (1952), 111. 158Ibid., 2. 193Soloway R.A. (1997), 57. 131Blacker C.P. (1946), 25. 159Eugenics Education Society (1936), 194“Propositions Designed to Establish a 132Letter from Karl Pearson to C.P. 179. Basis of Agreement between the National Blacker, 30 June 1931. Wellcome 160Blacker C.P.: “The Society’s Future Birth Control Association and the Library, SA/EUG/C.268 (AMS/MF/112). Policy”, 25 October 1946. Wellcome Eugenics Society,” c.1936. Wellcome 133Mazumdar P.M.H. (1992), 53. Library SA/EUG/J.7. Library SA/EUG/D.23 (AMS/MF/113). 134Eugenics Education Society(1936), 161Blacker C.P. (1946), 26. 195Letter from Stella Churchill to C.P. 179. 162Gotto, S. (1917), 185. Blacker, 10 November 1936. Wellcome 135Blacker C.P. (c.1937): “Proposal as to 163Bramwell B.S. (1937), 275. Library SA/EUG/D.23 (AMS/MF/113). the Formation of a Joint Committee to 164Gotto, S. (1917), 188. 196Kevles D.J. (1985), 85. Deal with the Problems of Positive 165“The Aims and Objects of the Eugen- 197Eugenics Education Society (1920),32. Eugenics,” Wellcome Library, SA/EUG/ ics Society”, c.1930s. Wellcome Library 198Darwin, L. (1913)a, 5. D.163 (AMS/MF/114). SA/EUG/D.5 (AMS/MF/113). 199Crackanthorpe M. (1908), 10. Well- 136“The Aims and Objects of the Eugen- 166Langdon Down (1936): “Comments on come Library, SA/EUG/A.1 ics Society,” Wellcome Library SA/EUG/ Resolution Re War”, 29 September 1936. 200Searle G.R. (1976), 81-82. D.5 (AMS/MF/113). This file includes Wellcome Library SA/EUG/D.5 (AMS/ 201Drysdale C.V. (1922), 109. numerous versions of this pamphlet about MF/113). 202Ibid., 103. the goals of the Society. The environ- 167Letter from D. Caradog Jones to the 203Fisher R.A. (1917), 209. mental issues mentioned, such as hous- Eugenics Society, 5 October 1936. 204Allen G.E. (1992), 196. ing, appear in later versions from the late Wellcome Library SA/EUG/D.5 (AMS/ 205Kevles D.J. (1985), 128. 1930s. MF/113). 206Soloway R.A. (1995), 65. 137MacKenzie D.A. (1981), 11. 168Darwin L. (c.1935): “Notes on Profes- 207Sinsheimer, R.L. (1987), 136. 138Letter from Charles Darwin to Francis sor Carr-Saunder’s Proposals in Regard 208Mai L.D.Angerami E.L.S. (2006), 257. Galton, 4 January 1873. Reproduced in to a Positive Population Policy,” Well- 209Ibid., 255. Pearson K. (1924), 176. come Library PP/CPB B.1/4. (Fuller references from the General 139Galton F. (c.1888): Incomplete 169Soloway R.A. (1998), 57. Secretary, The Galton Institute) manuscript on race improvement, 22. 170Ellis H. (1917), 33-34. Galton Collection, UCL Library Services, 171“The Aims and Objects of the Eugen- Archival Sources: Special Collections, 138/4. ics Society”, c. 1936-1938. Wellcome Wellcome Library, Archives and Manu- 140Galton F. (1906): “Eugenics Certifi- Library SA/EUG/D.5 (AMS/MF/113). scripts Collections cates,” manuscript, 1. Galton Collection, 172Blacker C.P. (1950), 9. C.P. Blacker Collection (PP/CPB), UCL Library Services, Special Collec- 173Ellis H. (1917), 6. especially series B which contains his 174 correspondence with Leonard Darwin tions, 138/10. Blacker C.P. (1950), 16. 141Ibid., 1-3. 175Kevles D.J. (1985), 71. 142 176 Eugenics Society Collection (access by “The Aims and Objects of the Eugen- Darwin L. (1920), 216. permission of the Galton Institute) ics Society,” Wellcome Library SA/ 177Blacker C.P. (1949): “The Eugenics especially series: EUG/D.5 (AMS/MF/113). ‘Health Society’s Policy,” 18 October 1949. A – Annual Reports on micro film 1908- examinations before marriage’ as a Wellcome Library SA/EUG/J.7. 1979 means to promote ‘positive eugenics’ 178Fisher R.A. (1917). B – Early files 1908-1919 appears in many editions of this docu- 179Darwin L. (1921), 440. C – correspondence with people 1919- ment between c.1936 and 1939. 180Drysdale C.V. (1922), 110. 1975 143 181 D – general correspondence 1919-1973 Letter from Leonard Darwin to C.P. MacNicol J. (1989), 169. J – miscellanea containing policies of the Blacker, 14 December 1933. Wellcome 182Gotto, S. (1917), 186. 183 society Library PP/CPB B.1/2. Mazumdar P.M.H. (1992), 49. K – Marie K. Stopes files regarding birth 144“The Aims and Objects of the Eugen- 184Kevles D.J. (1985), 96. control ics Society,” Wellcome Library SA/EUG/ 185Soloway R.A. (1982), 122. D.5 (AMS/MF/113). See note 142. 186Fisher R.A. (1917), 206. In many of these collections the material 145Fisher R.A. (1917), 207. 187Blacker C.P. (c.1937): “Proposal as to was available only in microfilm or

SEPTEMBER 2010 14 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER microfische, hence the citations contain Crackanthorpe M. (1910): “Presidential (unpublished), University of Indiana both a collection reference, eg. SA/EUG/ Address May 5th, 1910,” Eugenics (Ann Arbor MI, University Microfilms C.268, and a microfilm/microfische Education Society, Second Annual Report Inc.). reference, eg. AMS/MF/112. (1909-1910), 1-16. UCL Special Collections Ferla L. (2007): “Cuerpo y Compor- Galton Collection – especially correspon- Darwin L. (1911): “Presidential Address tamiento: El Examen Médico-Legal en el dence and scientific papers series June 1st 1911,” Eugenics Education Brasil de Entreguerras,” in Vallejo G. and Pearson Papers – especially correspon- Society, Third Annual Report (1910- Miranda M. (eds.), Políticas del Cuerpo: dence series 1911), 3-17. Estrategias Modernas de Normalización del Individua y la Sociedad. (Buenos Darwin L. (1913)a: “The Eugenic Ideal,” Aires, Siglo), 59-96. Published Primary and Secondary Eugenics Review 5 (1), 2-9. Sources: Fisher R.A. (1917): “Positive Eugenics,” Darwin L. (1913)b: “The Cost of Degen- Eugenics Review 9 (3), 206-212. Adams M.B. (1990): “Eugenics in Russia eracy: Part of the Annual Presidential 1900-1940,” in Adams M.B. (ed.), The Address,” Eugenics Review 5 (2), 93-100. Fisher R.A. (1928): “Income-Tax Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, Rebates,” Eugenics Review 20 (2), 79-81. France, Brazil, and Russia. (Oxford, Darwin L. (1920): “Memorandum on the Oxford University Press), 153-216. Evidence Proposed to Be Given Before Fleming S. (1986): “Eleanor Rathbone: the Royal Commission on the Income Spokeswoman for a Movement,” in Allen G.E. (1992): “Julian Huxley and Tax,” Eugenics Review 11 (4), 213-218. Rathbone E.F., The Disinherited Family the Eugenical View of Human Evolu- with an Introduction Essay by Suzie tion,” in Waters C.K. and Van Helden A. Darwin L. (1921): “How Should Our Fleming. (Bristol, Falling Wall Press), 9- (eds.), Julian Huxley: Biologist and Society Now Strive to Advance?,” 120. Statesman of Science. (Texas, Rice Eugenics Review 3 (3), 439-455. University Press), 193-222. Galton F. (1901): “The Possible Improve- Darwin L. (1924): “Programme of ment of the Human Breed under the Banks, J.A. (1954): Prosperity and Eugenic Reform,” Eugenics Review 15 Existing Conditions of Law and Senti- Parenthood: A Study of Family Planning (4), 595-596. ment,” Nature 64 (1670), 659-665. among the Victorian Middle Classes. (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Davin A. (1978): “Imperialism and Galton F. (1908)a: “Local Associations Limited). Motherhood,” History Workshop 5, 9-65. for Promoting Eugenics,” Nature 78 (2034), 645-647. Blacker C.P. (1946): “Positive Eugenics: Drysdale C.V. (1922): “A Guiding A Proposal,” Eugenics Review 38 (1), 25- Principle for Practical Eugenic Reform,” Galton F. (1908)b: Memories of My Life. 26. Eugenics Review 14 (2), 103-114. 2nd Ed. (London, Methuen and Co.).

Blacker C.P. (1950): Eugenics in Retro- Ellis H. (1917): “Birth-Control And Gotto S. (1917): “The Eugenic Principle spect and Prospect: The Galton Lecture, Eugenics,” Eugenics Review 9 (1), 32- in Social Reconstruction,” Eugenics 1945.2nd Ed. (London, The Eugenics 41. Review 9 (3), 183-205. Society and Cassell and Company). Eugenics Education Society (1908)a: Guyer M.F. (1927): Being Well Born: An Blacker C.P. (1952): Eugenics: Galton “Origin and Work of the Society (1907- Introduction to Heredity and Eugenics. and After. (London, Gerald Duckworth). 8),” Eugenics Education Society, First (Indianapolis, Bobbs-Merrill Company) Annual Report (1908), 16-18. Bramwell B.S. (1937): “Falling Popula- Haller M.H. (1963): Eugenics: Heredi- tion and Positive Eugenics,” Eugenics Eugenics Education Society (1908)b: tarian Attitudes in American Thought. Review 28 (4), 273-275. “Rules of the Eugenics Education (New Jersey, Rutgers University Press). Society,” Eugenics Education Society, Canali S. (2001): “Il Consiglio Nazionale First Annual Report (1908), 21-23. Holmes S.J. (1924): A Bibliography of delle Ricerche e la Medicina Italiana nel Eugenics. (California, University of Periodo Fascista,” Medicina nei Secoli 13 Eugenics Education Society (1920): California Press). (1), 143-167. “Report of the Eighth Annual Conference of Educational Associations, 1920,” Joravsky D. (1961): Soviet Marxism and Carlson E. (2001): The Unfit: A History Eugenics Review 12 (1), 32-37. Natural Science 1917-1932. (London, of a Bad Idea. (Cold Spring Harbor NY, Routledge and Kegan Paul). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press). Eugenics Education Society (1925): “Family Endowment. Discussion,” Kevles D.J. (1985): In the Name of Chan C.K. (1987): “Eugenics on the Eugenics Review 16 (4), 279-284. Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Rise: A Report from Singapore,” in Human Heredity. (New York, Alfred Chadwick R.F. (ed.), Ethics, Reproduc- Eugenics Education Society (1926): “The Knopf). tion, and Genetic Control. (London, Eugenics Policy of the Society,” Eugen- Routledge), 164-171. ics Review 18 (2), 91-94. Ludmerer K.M. (1972): Genetics and American Society: A Historical Ap- Crackanthorpe M. (1907): Population Eugenics Education Society (1936): praisal. (London, The Johns Hopkins and Progress. (London, Chapman and “Notes of the Quarter,” Eugenics Review University Press). Hall). 28 (3), 175-180. MacKenzie D.A. (1981): Statistics in Crackanthorpe M. (1908): “The Eugenic Farrall L. (1970): The Origins and Britain 1865-1930: The Social Contruc- Field,” Eugenics Education Society, First Growth of the English Eugenics Move- tion of Scientific Knowledge. (Edinburgh, Annual Report (1907-1908), 1-15. ment 1865-1925. PhD dissertation Edinburgh University Press).

GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER 15 SEPTEMBER 2010 MacNicol J. (1989): “Eugenics and the R.A. (ed.), Marie Stopes, Eugenics and Sinsheimer R.L. (1987): “The Prospect of Campaign for Voluntary Sterilization in The English Birth Control Movement. Designed Genetic Change,” in Chadwick Britain between the Wars,” Social (London, The Galton Institute), 1-12. R.F. (ed.), Ethics, Reproduction, and History of Medicine 2 (2), 147-169. Genetic Control. (London, Routledge), Rathbone E.F. (1925): “Family Endow- 136-146. Mai L.D. and Angerami E.L.S. (2006): ment in Its Bearing on the Question of “Eugenia Negativa e Positiva: Signofi- Population,” Eugenics Review 16 (4), Soloway R.A. (1982): Birth Control and candos e Contradições,” Revista Latino- 270-275. the Population Question in England, Americana de Enfermagem 14 (2), 251- 1877-1930. (London, The University of 258. Rathbone E.F. (1986): The Disinherited North Carolina Press). Family with an Introduction Essay by Mattila M. (1999): Kansamme Parha- Suzie Fleming. (Bristol, Falling Wall Soloway R.A. (1995): Demography and aksi: Rotuhygienia Suomessa Vuoden Press). Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declin- 1935 Sterilointilakiin Asti. (Helsinki, ing Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Suomen Historiallinen Seura). Richards M. (2008): “Artificial Insemina- Britain. (London, The University of tion and Eugenics: Celibate Motherhood, North Carolina Press). Mazumdar P.M.H. (1992): Eugenics, Eutelegenesis and Germinal Choice,” Human Genetics and Human Failings: Studies in the History and Philosophy of Soloway R.A. (1998): “From Mainline to The Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Its Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39, Reform Eugenics – Leonard Darwin and Critics in Britain. (London, Routledge). 211-221. C P Blacker,” in Peel R.A. (ed.), Essays in the History of Eugenics: Proceedings McLaren A. (1978): Birth Control in Schneider W.H. (1990)a: “The Eugenics of a Conference Organised by the Galton Nineteenth-Century England. (London, Movement in France 1890-1940,” in Institute, London, 1997. (London, The Croom Helm). Adams M.B. (ed.), The Wellborn Sci- Galton Institute), 52-80. ence: Eugenics in Germany, France, National Council of Public Morals Brazil, and Russia. (Oxford, Oxford (1916): The Declining Birth-Rate: Its University Press), 69-109. Vallejo G. (2007): “Cuerpo y Repre- Causes ad Effects. Being the report of sentación: La Imagen del Hombre en la and the chief evidence taken by the Schneider W.H. (1990)b: Quality and Eugenesia Latina,” in Vallejo G. and National Birth-Rate Commission, Quantity: The Quest for Biological Miranda M. (eds.), Políticas del Cuerpo: constituted ... by the National Council of Regeneration in Twentieth-Century Estrategias Modernas de Normalización Public Morals, for the promotion of race France. (Cambridge, Cambridge Univer- del Individua y la Sociedad. (Buenos regeneration, spiritual, moral and sity Press). Aires, Siglo), 23-58. physical. (London, Chapman and Hall). Schwartz J. (2008): In Pursuit of the Weiss S.F. (1990): “The Race Hygiene Movement,” in Adams M.B. (ed.), The Pearson K. (1924): The Life, Letters and Gene: From Darwin to DNA. (Cambridge Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, Labours of Francis Galton. Vol. 2. Mass., Harvard University Press). France, Brazil, and Russia. (Oxford, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Oxford University Press), 8-68. Press). Searle G.R. (1976): Eugenics and Politics in Britain 1900-1914. (Leyden, Noord- Peel J. (1997): “Introduction,” in Peel hoff International Publishing).)

GALTON INSTITUTE CONFERENCE 2010 To be held at The Royal Society on Wednesday, 10 November, 2010

EPIGENETICS: Where Life Meets the Genome

Professor Adrian Bird, CBE, FRS, FRSE - Epigenetics and Chromatin Professor Azim Surani, CBE, FRS, FMedSci (The Galton Lecturer) - Germ cells: The eternal link between all generations Professor Bernhard Horsthemke - Role of Genomic Imprinting in human disease Professor Peter A Jones -The Cancer Epigenome and Epigenetic Therapy Dr Vardhman Rakyan - Epigenetics in multifactorial disease Professor Marcus Pembrey, FMedSci - Summary and concluding thoughts

Admission is free but strictly by ticket, available from The General Secretary [email protected]

SEPTEMBER 2010 16 GALTON INSTITUTE NEWSLETTER