Eugenics Record Office

Last updated

The Eugenics Record Office (ERO), located in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, United States, was a research institute that gathered biological and social information about the American population, serving as a center for eugenics and human heredity research from 1910 to 1939. It was established by the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Station for Experimental Evolution, and subsequently administered by its Department of Genetics. [1]

Contents

Both its founder, Charles Benedict Davenport, and its director, Harry H. Laughlin, were major contributors to the field of eugenics in the United States. Its mission was to collect substantial information on the ancestry of the American population, to produce propaganda that was made to fuel the eugenics movement, and to promote the idea of race-betterment.

History

The eugenics movement was popular and viewed as progressive in the early-twentieth-century United States. [2] Charles Davenport was one of the leaders of this campaign and avidly believed that it was necessary to apply Mendelian Genetics principles to humans. Davenport's wife, Gertrude Davenport, was also an important figure in this movement and the establishment of the ERO. [3] Gertrude Davenport was an embryologist and a geneticist who wrote papers with her husband supporting the idea that Mendelian genetics theories applied to humans.

Supported by the argument that the eugenics office would collect information for human genetics research, Davenport convinced the Carnegie Institute to establish the ERO. [4] He was well connected to wealthy people during the time and he lobbied them to finance his vision of the ERO. The ERO was financed primarily by Mary Harriman (widow of railroad baron E. H. Harriman), [5] the Rockefeller Foundation, and then the Carnegie Institution until 1939. In 1935, the Carnegie Institution sent a team to review the ERO's work, and as a result the ERO was ordered to stop all work. In 1939 the Carnegie Institution's new president, Vannevar Bush, forced Laughlin's retirement and withdrew funding for the ERO entirely, leading to its closure at the end of that year. [6]

Superintendent Harry H. Laughlin, formerly a school superintendent in Iowa, held a position akin to that of an assistant director of the ERO. Charles Davenport appointed Laughlin as a head of the ERO due to Laughlin's extensive knowledge about breeding and the implementation of this knowledge in humans. [7] Under the direction of Laughlin, the ERO advocated laws that led to the forced sterilization of many Americans it categorized as 'socially inadequate'. [8]

The endeavors of the Eugenics Record Office were facilitated by the work of various committees. The Committee on Inheritance of Mental Traits included among its members Robert M. Yerkes and Edward L. Thorndike. [9] The Committee on Heredity of Deafmutism included Alexander Graham Bell. [10] Harry H. Laughlin was on the Committee on Sterilization, and the Committee on the Heredity of the Feeble Minded included, among others, Henry Herbert Goddard. Other prominent board members included scientists like Irving Fisher, William E. Castle, and Adolf Meyer.

In the 1920s, the ERO merged with the Station for Experimental Evolution and adopted the name of the Department of Genetics of the Carnegie Institute. [11]

Eventually, the ERO closed in December 1939 in part due to the disapproval it received. The information that had been collected by the ERO was distributed amongst other genetic research based organizations and collections services. [1]

The ERO's reports, articles, charts, and pedigrees were considered scientific facts in their day, but have since been discredited. In 1944 its records were transferred to the Charles Fremont Dight Institute for the Promotion of Human Genetics at the University of Minnesota. When the Dight Institute closed in 1991, the genealogical material was filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah and given to the Center for Human Genetics. The non-genealogical material was not filmed and was given to the American Philosophical Society Library. The American Philosophical Society has a copy of the microfilm as well. Today, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory maintains the full historical records, communications and artifacts of the ERO for historical, [12] teaching and research purposes. The documents are housed in a campus archive and can be accessed online [13] and in a series of multimedia websites. [14]

Methods

First Annual Field Workers' Conference, Eugenics Record Office, 1912 First Annual Field Workers' Conference, Eugenics Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island, New York, June 20 and 21,1912.jpg
First Annual Field Workers' Conference, Eugenics Record Office, 1912

The ERO collected research mostly through questionnaires. These questionnaires asked questions which described the characteristics of individual people and their families. These characteristics ranged from physical to temperamental properties. Many of these questionnaires were collected by field workers, usually educated women (who had few other jobs open to them), who would go door-to-door asking people to fill out this information. Many of these women had bachelor's degrees in biology, and graduate school degrees were not uncommon. [15] Additionally, the ERO had other methods of collecting these questionnaires such as sending them through the mail, and promoting them as methods for families to learn about their genetic lineage and family history. [1]

The research collected by these field workers provided much of the information which facilitated the passage of several laws during the 1920s. [1]

The ERO disseminated its information and its message via a variety of outlets. These included a journal called Eugenical News, posters with propaganda full messages about intelligent breeding, and pamphlets with information on the movement. [11]

Controversy

Eugenics was and continues to be a controversial issue due to the pressure radical eugenicists put on the government to pass legislation that would restrict the liberties of the people who had traits that could be considered undesirable. [1] Specifically, the ERO dedicated its resources to the restriction of immigrants and the forced sterilization of individuals deemed to have undesirable characteristics. They promoted their ideas through the distribution of propaganda that came in the form of images and information packets.

Something else that caused tension within and surrounding the ERO was Harry H. Laughlin's radical policy suggestions. He was known for presenting fraudulent evidence to support policies of forced sterilization and was known for dogmatism. For instance, after being appointed to House committee for immigration, Harry H. Laughlin attempted to convince the committee that there were lower quality genes coming from southern and eastern parts of Europe. Consequently, the Johnson-Reed Act was passed in 1924 which prevented immigration from these areas. Harry Laughlin also advocated for compulsory sterilization on the state level. Over 35 states approved of these laws and numerous people were sterilized before the laws were repealed. [16] Furthermore, the rise of Nazism in the 1930s and their use of and belief in eugenics led to opposition to the American program. The ERO finally being closed in 1939. [17] Harry Laughlin's policies were used in Germany where forced sterilization laws were passed. The result of these laws led to the sterilization of 400,000 individuals. [16] Adolf Hitler also referred to American eugenics in his memoir, Mein Kampf. He claimed non-Aryan races to be subordinate and compulsory sterilization was justified in his view as a result. [18]

Many government officials who were proponents of the ERO sought to implement forced sterilization laws. For example, Menendez Ramos, governor of Puerto Rico in the 1930s, established sterilization laws for Puerto Rican women. The intent was to battle generational poverty and increase economic utility among Puerto Ricans. Some historians say these laws were implemented in order to supposedly prevent the gene pool from being pervaded by Latino blood. In addition, in 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court claimed that sterilizing disabled citizens does not violate the Constitution. While these laws were ultimately repealed, a large majority of individuals had been already sterilized. Moreover, during the eugenics era, California lawmakers forcibly sterilized thousands of individuals in mental health facilities. The goal was to prevent the spread of mental illness in the following generations. Some children were allegedly denied healthcare unless their mothers were forcibly sterilized as well. [18]

Many academics criticized the ERO. Herbert Spencer Jennings from Johns Hopkins University criticized Laughlin's data which was used to justify restrictions on immigration. Other critics challenged the claims of eugenicists that there was a genetic influence from certain groups of people. For example, anthropologist Franz Boas from Columbia University claimed that Laughlin used racism masquerading as science. [16]

Many scholars criticized how data was obtained and further used to justify the claims from the Eugenics Record Office. Major criticism came from the Galton Laboratory. Critics mentioned data obtained by eugenicists lacked an approach free from bias. They also claimed the data did not match Mendelian genetics. For instance, one main critique was the labeling of heterozygotes. Heterozygotes were sometimes labeled intermediate, while other times heterozygotes were labeled normal. According to the Galton Laboratory, the inconsistency in data showed the carelessness of their approach. Furthermore, a major critic of eugenics, A.M. Carr-Saunders of Britain, mentioned eugenicists were incapable of providing a distinction between biological heredity and the environment. He claimed social factors were largely dismissed by eugenicists. [19]

Economist Joseph M. Gillman criticized the statistical analysis and research methodology of the ERO's work, arguing that there were rudimentary statistics errors, as well as selection bias. For instance, Harry H. Laughlin asserted that various forms of "degeneracy" were innate to certain racial groups of recent immigrants by looking at populations in asylums and homes for the disabled. However, he failed to account for the fact that racial groups of older immigrant communities were more likely to take care of their disabled at home rather than place them in institutions, which was not the case for smaller recent immigrant groups who may not have family in the country to take care of them. [20] Gillman wrote that the errors were so rudimentary that,

what prompted both these gentlemen to commit these errors was apparently their intense desire, of one to associate with, and of the other to dissociate from race the incidence of the various social inadequacies. Facts were therefore selected in such a manner and the methods of interpretation were so chosen as to yield the desired support for their preconceived conclusions. [20]

Although the ERO and eugenics movement was prominent in the early to mid twentieth century, many of the initial philosophies remained. In a 1976 investigation, the Government Accountability Office found that over 25 percent of Native Americans were forcibly sterilized in the early 1970s. [18] Additionally, in China, many Chinese geneticists sought to improve population quality. Beginning in the 1990s, some Chinese government officials sought to eliminate those with opposing moral values which tend to be influenced by the Buddhist and Taoist religions. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Aim to improve perceived human genetic quality

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior. In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with heated debate around whether these technologies should be considered eugenics or not.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory</span> Private, non-profit research institution in New York, United States

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) is a private, non-profit institution with research programs focusing on cancer, neuroscience, plant biology, genomics, and quantitative biology. It is located in Laurel Hollow on Long Island, New York.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Despite the changing attitudes in the coming decades regarding sterilization, the Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell. It is widely believed to have been weakened by Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which involved compulsory sterilization of male habitual criminals. Legal scholar and Holmes biographer G. Edward White, in fact, wrote, "the Supreme Court has distinguished the case [Buck v. Bell] out of existence". In addition, federal statutes, including the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, provide protections for people with disabilities, defined as both physical and mental impairments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul Popenoe</span>

Paul Bowman Popenoe was an American marriage counselor, eugenicist and agricultural explorer. He was an influential advocate of the compulsory sterilization of mentally ill people and people with mental disabilities, and the father of marriage counseling in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harry H. Laughlin</span> American eugenicist (1880–1943)

Harry Hamilton Laughlin was an American educator and eugenicist. He served as the superintendent of the Eugenics Record Office from its inception in 1910 to its closure in 1939, and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy, especially compulsory sterilization legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Davenport</span> American biologist and eugenicist (1866–1944)

Charles Benedict Davenport was a biologist and eugenicist influential in the American eugenics movement.

The American Eugenics Society (AES) was a pro-eugenics organization dedicated to "furthering the discussion, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge about biological and sociocultural forces which affect the structure and composition of human populations". It endorsed the study and practice of Eugenics in the United States. Its original name as the American Eugenics Society lasted from 1922 to 1973, but the group changed their name after open use of the term "eugenics" became disfavored; it was known as the Society for the Study of Social Biology from 1973-2008, and the Society for Biodemography and Social Biology from 2008–2019. The Society was disbanded in 2019.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Herbert Spencer Jennings</span> American geneticist and eugenicist (1868–1947)

Herbert Spencer Jennings was an American zoologist, geneticist, and eugenicist. His research helped demonstrate the link between physical and chemical stimulation and automatic responses in lower orders of animals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nazi eugenics</span> Nazi German policy of the murder of "undesirable" persons from the German people

The social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany were composed of various ideas about genetics. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of "Nordic" or "Aryan" traits at its center. These policies were used to justify the involuntary sterilization and mass-murder of those deemed "undesirable".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Eugenics Conference</span>

Three International Eugenics Congresses took place between 1912 and 1932 and were the global venue for scientists, politicians, and social leaders to plan and discuss the application of programs to improve human heredity in the early twentieth century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dolan DNA Learning Center</span> Science museum in Cold Spring Harbor, New York

The DNA Learning Center (DNALC) is a genetics learning center affiliated with the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. It is the world's first science center devoted entirely to genetics education and offers online education, class field trips, student summer day camps, and teacher training. The DNALC's family of internet sites cover broad topics including basic heredity, genetic disorders, eugenics, the discovery of the structure of DNA, DNA sequencing, cancer, neuroscience, and plant genetics.

Heredity in Relation to Eugenics is a book by American eugenicist Charles Benedict Davenport, published in 1911. It argued that many human traits were genetically inherited, and that it would therefore be possible to selectively breed people for desirable traits to improve the human race. It was printed and published with money and support of the Carnegie Institution. The book was widely used as a text for medical schools in the United States and abroad.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hereditary Health Court</span>

The Hereditary Health Court, also known as the Genetic Health Court, was a court that decided whether people should be forcibly sterilized in Nazi Germany. That method of using courts to make decisions on hereditary health in Nazi Germany was created to implement the Nazi race policy aiming for racial hygiene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in the United States</span>

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century. The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.

The history of eugenics is the study of development and advocacy of ideas related to eugenics around the world. Early eugenic ideas were discussed in Ancient Greece and Rome. The height of the modern eugenics movement came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924</span> 1924 U.S. state law allowing compulsory sterilization for eugenic purposes

The Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 was a U.S. state law in Virginia for the sterilization of institutionalized persons "afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy”. It greatly influenced the development of eugenics in the twentieth century. The act was based on model legislation written by Harry H. Laughlin and challenged by a case that led to the United States Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell. The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional and it became a model law for sterilization laws in other states. Justice Holmes wrote that a patient may be sterilized "on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse." Between 1924 and 1979, Virginia sterilized over 7,000 individuals under the act. The act was never declared unconstitutional; however, in 2001, the Virginia General Assembly passed a joint resolution apologizing for the misuse of "a respectable, 'scientific' veneer to cover activities of those who held blatantly racist views." In 2015, the Assembly agreed to compensate individuals sterilized under the act.

Gertrude Anna Davenport, was an American zoologist who worked as both a researcher and an instructor at established research centers such as the University of Kansas and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory where she studied embryology, development, and heredity. The wife of Charles Benedict Davenport, a prominent eugenicist, she co-authored several works with her husband. Together, they were highly influential in the United States eugenics movement during the progressive era.

Dr. George Draper was an American physician. He was affiliated with Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital. Most famously known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's personal doctor, Draper was also a well known constitutionalist and eugenicist. Draper was a key figure in developing a constitutional view of medicine during the 20th century.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenic feminism</span> Areas of the womens suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics

Eugenic feminism was a component of the women's suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics. Originally coined by the eugenicist Caleb Saleeby, the term has since been applied to summarize views held by some prominent feminists of the United States. Some early suffragettes in Canada, particularly a group known as The Famous Five, also pushed for eugenic policies, chiefly in Alberta and British Columbia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur Estabrook</span>

Arthur Howard Estabrook was an American researcher and eugenist.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Tom. "Eugenics Record Office - Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory - Library & Archives". library.cshl.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  2. ↑ "Haunted Files: The Eugenics Record Office (October 3, 2014 – March 13, 2015) – Asian/Pacific/American Institute at NYU". apa.nyu.edu. 21 August 2014. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  3. ↑ "The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1910-1939) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia". embryo.asu.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  4. ↑ Allen, Garland E. (1986-01-01). "The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: An Essay in Institutional History". Osiris. 2: 225–264. doi:10.1086/368657. JSTOR   301835. PMID   11621591. S2CID   411710.
  5. ↑ Comfort, Nathaniel C. (2009-06-30). The Tangled Field: Barbara... ISBN   9780674029828 . Retrieved 2011-02-03.
  6. ↑ See Jan A. Witkowski, "Charles Benedict Davenport, 1866-1944," in Jan A. Witkowski and John R. Inglis, eds., Davenport's Dream: 21st Century Reflections on Heredity and Eugenics (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2008), p. 52.
  7. ↑ "The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1910-1939) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia". embryo.asu.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  8. ↑ Wilson, Philip K (2002). "Harry Laughlin's eugenic crusade to control the 'socially inadequate' in Progressive Era America". Patterns of Prejudice. 36 (1): 49–67. doi:10.1080/003132202128811367. ISSN   0031-322X. S2CID   145694421.
  9. ↑ Zenderland, Leila (2001), Measuring Minds: Henry Herbert Goddard and the Origins of American Intelligence Testing, New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 164.
  10. ↑ "Eugenic Archives: Eugenics Record Office, board of scientific directors and functions". www.eugenicsarchive.org. Retrieved 2021-06-11.
  11. 1 2 Office, Eugenics Record (2000-09-01). "Eugenics Record Office Records" . Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  12. ↑ See Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Alfred A. Knopf, 1985); Elof A. Carlson: The Unfit: The History of a Bad Idea (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001); Jan A. Witkowski and John R. Inglis, eds., Davenport's Dream: 21st Century Reflections on Heredity and Eugenics (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2008)
  13. ↑ CSHL Archives general search: "eugenics" Archived 2021-02-24 at the Wayback Machine Carnegie Institution of Washington Eugenics Record Office Collection: Archived 2021-02-24 at the Wayback Machine Charles B. Davenport Collection: Archived 2021-02-24 at the Wayback Machine The study of human heredity; Methods of collecting, charting, and analyzing data: Archived 2021-02-24 at the Wayback Machine The Eugenics Record Office at the end of twenty-seven months work: Archived 2021-02-28 at the Wayback Machine
  14. ↑ DNALC web pages on Eugenics: ; DNALC Image Archives on the Eugenics Movement: ; ; DNALC Chronicle of eugenics: ;
  15. ↑ "The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (1910-1939) | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia". embryo.asu.edu. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  16. 1 2 3 Allen, Garland E. (2001-10-05). "Is a New Eugenics Afoot?". Science. 294 (5540): 59–61. doi:10.1126/science.1066325. ISSN   0036-8075. PMID   11588239.
  17. ↑ "EugenicsArchive". www.eugenicsarchive.org. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
  18. 1 2 3 "Eugenics". HISTORY. Retrieved 2021-03-21.
  19. ↑ Allen, Garland (2011-05-01). "Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics, 1910-1945". Biology Faculty Publications & Presentations. 75 (3): 314–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2011.00649.x . PMID   21488848. S2CID   13151572.
  20. 1 2 Gillman, Joseph M. (1924). "Statistics and the Immigration Problem". American Journal of Sociology. 30 (1): 29–48. ISSN   0002-9602.
  21. ↑ "Human Testing, the Eugenics Movement, and IRBs | Learn Science at Scitable". www.nature.com. Retrieved 2021-03-21.

Further reading

40°51′12″N73°28′23″W / 40.85323°N 73.47304°W / 40.85323; -73.47304

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.