Eugenics and the Galton Laboratory

In 1907, Pearson inherited a research laboratory that had been founded by Galton and reorganized it as the Francis Galton

Pearson’s correlation formula shows the relationship between variables. A value of 1 indicates perfect correlation (the variables rise or fall together). A value of -1 indicates inverse correlation (one goes up as the other goes down). Finally, a value of 0 would mean that there is no correlation at all between the variables in question.

Laboratory of National Eugenics. Eugenics (meaning “good or happy birth”) has a long but controversial history.

By the early 20th century, Darwin’s theory of evolution had become well accepted by scientists. Darwin’s central idea was that

I

: E

E

Modern experimental science would be impossible without the use of sophisticated statistical tools.

Data are not gathered in a vacuum. Normally, scientists decide to conduct an experiment or survey because they have a hypothesis they want to prove or disprove. For example, researchers may seek to confirm how well a program to help the homeless is working or determine the safety and efficacy of a new drug.

Whatever the goal of the research project, the theories, hopes, and expectations brought to the measuring process are likely to have considerable influence on what is measured, how it is measured, and what standards will be used to draw any conclusions.

The principle safeguard against scientific self-deception is the peer review process. Before a study is published in a reputable journal, experienced scientists in the same field who have no connection with the work are asked to review it. They look at how the experi- ment or survey is designed. For example, many experiments are designed in a double-blind format in which neither the experiment- ers nor the experimental subjects are told, for example, whether a test drug or an inert placebo is being administered. Reviewers look at the protocols, or procedures, of the experiment to try to identify possible sources of bias or inaccuracy.

Reviewers can also examine the statistical procedures used to analyze the results of the experiment. They ask whether all the variables likely to have an influence on the result are being con- trolled for or taken into account. Tools based on Pearson’s ideas can also be used to examine whether the observed results fall into the expected distribution. Finally, the statistical tests used to determine significance can be examined. When a report says that a result is statistically significant, this generally means that the probability of the result being due to mere chance or some unknown factor is very small.

those members of a species who were best able to survive predators and environmental hazards would be the ones who reproduced, passing their characteristics on to the next generation.

Although scientists of the time did not yet understand the biochemical basis of heredity (particularly the role of the DNA

I

: T

P

U

S

In making measurements for their eugenics studies, Galton and Pearson tried to be very careful in evaluating evidence. Indeed, they established standards for significance that are still used routinely today. Nevertheless, their measurements were shaped by their theories about intelligence and other human capabilities, and many of these theories would be considered wrong or at least overly simplistic today.

As practiced by Galton and Pearson, eugenics was intended to be a humane project that would lead to a steady improvement in the health, capabilities, and happiness of humankind. However, many of the assumptions used to judge human “fitness” were questionable. Further, the terms used to describe human characteristics tended to value qualities supposedly associated with Europeans over those identified with other racial groups.

Beyond the issue of scientific validity, there was also the question of ethics and rights. Does any government or agency have the right to tell people whether or not they could have children? This question became far more than academic when policies encouraging birth control or even sterilization were applied to racial and ethnic minori- ties. Ultimately, the Nazis carried eugenics to a horrific conclusion through programs in which they forcibly sterilized the mentally and physically “unfit,” and then went on to so-called euthanasia and, ultimately, genocide.

Scientific findings often become part of political discourse. When that happens, there are often claims that go well beyond what the sci- entific evidence may justify. At other times, however, strong scientific evidence may be ignored or minimized, as has been argued by critics of government policies toward global warming and climate change.

molecule), they did know that organisms carried genes that were associated with various characteristics (such as the color of the eyes or a pattern of fur). The little-known work of the monk Gregor Mendel on plant genetics had been rediscovered, allowing for basic calculations of the chance that a given characteristic of one or both parents would be passed to the offspring. Mathematical genetics was also accompanied by the experience of farmers and ranchers who had developed rough but useful methods for culling out defective plants or animals and trying to ensure that only the highest-quality ones were used for breeding.

Darwin had shown that human beings, despite their unique intellectual achievements, were animals subject to the same laws of natural selection as other creatures. The founder of the science of eugenics, Francis Galton, and successors such as Pearson set out to measure precisely hundreds of peoples’ physical characteristics and to observe how they were transmitted from generation to gen- eration. Where this attempt at a descriptive science became most controversial was when it was adopted as a form of social activ- ism. Many eugenicists advocated policies such as screening people for inherited diseases or defects, encouraging so-called genetically superior people to procreate, while reducing the reproduction of so-called genetically inferior people through birth control or, in extreme cases, sterilization.

Pearson believed that his role as a scientist was to try to determine the facts about human heredity, not to formulate social policy. He did not live to see the worst of the Nazi racist atrocities. However, toward the end of his life, Pearson did write a paper in which he demolished the idea of “race” as used by the Nazis and some of the more extreme eugenicists.