SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

July 1999

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"S. E. Anderson" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:18:26 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (684 lines)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:48:22
To: [log in to unmask]
From: Bill Koehnlein <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Psychiatry/Racism: In Genes We Trust: When "Science" Bows to Racism

http://www.breggin.com

              "In Genes We Trust: When Science Bows to Racism"

                              by Barry Mehler
                 E-mail the author at: [log in to unmask]
        published in Reform Judaism (Winter 1994) pp. 10-14; 77-79.

Revised and republished The Public Eye (March 1995); RaceFile 3 #3
(May-June
 1995), pp. 53-54; Networking: A Publication of the Fight The Right
Network
     #4 (30 March 1995) p. 6. The subject of "U.S. and a Racist Fund are

   Subsidizing 'Genetic Superiority' Theories," B'nai B'rith Messenger
(18
                           November 1994) p. 1; 7.

Frustrated by the inability of high-cost social programs to contain
violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, poverty and other social
afflictions,
senior public health officials and legislators are adopting the theories
of
a coterie of scientists who trace anti-social behavior to DNA and
recommend
that the most efficient way to improve society is by screening out and
sterilizing people diagnosed as genetically unfit. Those with desirable
genes would be given incentives to be fruitful and multiply.

If such a scenario reads like science fiction, consider that in this
century
thousands of Americans were declared "moral imbeciles" or "feeble-minded
and
sterilized by the state in eugenics programs designed to genetically
cleanse
the nation (see sidebar below: Eugenics in America). It was not until
the
shocking revelations of Nazi racist science after World War II, with its

euthanasia programs and fiendish experimentations on twins, that the
international eugenics movement receded. In recent years, however,
dramatic
discoveries in genetic research and the financial backing of a racist
foundation have provided the opportunity for scientists to revive the
eugenics agenda.

With fear of crime replacing communism as America's number one threat,
academics who believe that genes dictate destiny have commanded the kind
of
government attention and support once reserved for rocket scientists.
Their
views on saving America from the hereditarily defective are increasingly

influencing federal research priorities and public policy.

THE "VIOLENCE INITIATIVE" America's top scientific funding agencies for
health and science research are spending millions of tax dollars on
research
that seeks to control violence through genetic engineering and drugs. In

1992, for example, the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Research Council issued a 400 page report titled "Understanding and
Preventing Violence." Funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control,
the
U.S. Justice Department, and the National Science Foundation, the report

called for more attention to "biological and genetic factors in violent
crime." In particular it called for more research on "new
pharmaceuticals
that reduce violent behavior," and it asked researchers to determine
whether
male or black persons have a higher potential for violence, and if so,
why?
At the same time, the Center for Disease Control submitted its own
proposal
in June of 1992 to coordinate the efforts of seven federal agencies in
what
they called a "youth violence prevention initiative." (1)

Until Goodwin stepped down in April 1994 as NIMH director, he
administered
the "Violence Initiative," a conglomerate of over 300 research projects
"focusing on screening out and treating preventively violence prone
individuals."(2) This ongoing program, which Goodwin described as the
U.S.
government's "highest science priority," applies the tools of behavior
genetics to detect "biological markers" in "at risk" inner city children
and
to treat them with drugs "at a very early age before they have become
criminalized" (Washington Post, July 29, 1992). The NIMH has already
committed more than $150 million to the Violence Initiative, including a
$12
million pharmaceutical study of Ritalin.

THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT The largest U.S. government funded research in
the
history of the biomedical sciences - the $3 billion Human Genome Project

(HGP), designed to map our the entire human genetic code - promises
significant medical dividends in the treatment of individuals suffering
from
genetically related diseases. To justify its monumental expense,
however,
several HGP proponents, such as Daniel Koshland, editor of the
prestigious
journal Science, have claimed that discoveries resulting from HGP
research
will help cure society of crime, poverty, and other social ills.
Koshland, a
biochemist by training, wrote, "It is time the world recognizes that the

brain is an organ like any other... and that it can go wrong not only as
a
result of abuse, but also because of hereditary defects utterly
unrelated to
environmental influences" (editorial, Science, October 12, 1990).

Linking the HGP to claims about the genetic basis of social problems has

added to the credibility of the advocates of biological determinism in
the
nature vs. nurture debate, contributing to the ill-conceived notion,
widely
publicized in the media, that complex human attributes such as IQ and
moral
character are "in the genes." In fact, scientists remain sharply divided

about the relative influences of biology and environment on human
development. Many of the nation?s leading behavior geneticists reject
the
very question as meaningless, insisting that the two are inextricably
intertwined. Professor Richard C. Lewontin, a population biologist and
leading authority on genetics and evolution at Harvard University, has
written: "Even a trait that is one hundred percent heritable can easily
be
changed by environmental manipulation." (Science for the People 19, #6,
Nov./Dec. 1987)/ Jerry Hirsch, emeritus professor of Psychology at the
University of Illinois and one of the world?s leading experts on
behavior
genetics, agrees. Having bred over 1,000 generations of fruit flies
during
the past 40 years in an attempt to understand how inheritance and
environment affect behavior, Hirsch says the most important lesson he
has
learned is humility. Studying a creature with only four chromosome pairs

under laboratory controlled conditions, Hirsch found the correlation
genes
with behavior to be elusive. Hirsch does not deny that genes have an
effect
on complex human behavior, but has found that the interaction of genes
with
environment cannot be separated out, and that any set of genes can
express a
wide range of developmental outcomes. He concludes, "Each of us is all
heredity and all environment."

THE PIONEER FUND The revival of eugenics in North America has more to do

with ideology and money than with science. A New York-based foundation
called the Pioneer Fund, established in 1937 by textile heir Wickliffe
Draper, has provided millions of dollars (more than $10 million from
1971-1992 alone) to behavioral scientists whose findings lend credence
to
racist ideas and eugenic solutions, as well as to anti-immigrant groups.

Draper believed that genetics could be used to prove the inferiority of
blacks and the superiority of the white Anglo-Saxon stock that first
colonized the Eastern seaboard. The Pioneer Fund?s original charter
outlines
a commitment to work for "racial betterment" through studies in heredity
and
eugenics and to "improve the character of the American people" by
encouraging the procreation of descendants of the original white
colonial
stock.

To help establish the Pioneer Fund, Draper asked Frederick Osborn,
secretary
of the American Eugenics Society, and Harry Laughlin, a supporter of
Hitler?s race ideology, to organize research projects and distribute
pro-eugenic propaganda. Osborn believed the Nazi sterilization program
was
"perhaps the most important social program which has ever been tried"
(Summary of the Proceedings of the Conference on Eugenics in Relation to

Nursing, Feb. 24, 1937). Harry Laughlin, director of the Carnegie
Institute?s Eugenics Record Office, had been honored in 1936 by the
Third
Reich for his contributions to Nazi eugenics. Laughlin accepted the
award
"as evidence of a common understanding" between American and Nazi
scientists
on the importance of preserving "the racial health" of future
generations.

As one of the Pioneer Fund?s first "accomplishments," it imported two
copies
of a Nazi propaganda film, "Applied Eugenics in Present-Day Germany,"
adding
English subtitles for American consumption. The film portrayed severely
impaired people as freaks living in the splendor of a palatial
sanitarium,
while genetically-sound Aryan children lived in squalor. The message was

clear: too much money is wasted on "life unworthy of living."

The Nazis produced more sophisticated versions as a means of preparing
medical workers to commit mass murder in state-sanctioned euthanasia
programs. During the Third Reich an estimated 200,000 mentally and
physically disabled persons were murdered by lethal injection,
deliberate
starvation, and gas.

SHOCKLEY AND JENSEN The Pioneer Fund has changed little since its
inception.
A December 11, 1977 New York Times article characterized it as having
"supported highly controversial research by a dozen scientists who
believe
that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites." In the 1960s
Nobel Laureate Wiliam Shockley (1910-1989), a physicist at Stanford
University who advocated programs of voluntary sterilization of people
with
lower than the average IQ score of 100, received an estimated $180,000
from
the Pioneer Fund. Dr. Jensen, an educational psychologist who was
recruited
to the racist cause in 1966, garnered more than a million dollars in
Pioneer
grants over the past three decades. The investment yielded early
dividends.
Three years later, in an article published by the prestigious Harvard
Education Review Jensen attacked Head Start programs, claiming the
problem
with black children is that they have an average IQ of only 85 and that
no
amount of social engineering would improve their performance. Jensen
urged
"eugenic foresight" as the only solution.

ROGER PEARSON Fascist ideologist Roger Pearson, a Pioneer Fund
beneficiary
($568,000 from 1981-1991) and author of Eugenics and Race, published by
Willis Carto?s notoriously anti-Semitic Noontide Press, argues that the
white race is endangered by inferior genetic stock, but with proper use
of
modern biological technology "a new super-generation" descended from
"only
the fittest" of the previous generation can be produced. The first
nation to
adopt such a scientific breeding program, Pearson contends, would
dominate
the rest of the world."

In 1965 Pearson became editor of Western Destiny, a magazine established
by
Carto and dedicated to spreading fascist ideology. Using the pseudonym
of
Stephan Langton, Pearson then became the editor of The New Patriot, a
short-lived magazine published in 1966-67 to conduct "a responsible but
penetrating inquiry into every aspect of the Jewish Question," which
included articles such as "Zionists and the Plot Against South Africa,"
"Early Jews and the Rise of Jewish Money Power," and "Swindlers of the
Crematoria."

Despite Pearson's long history of association with neo-Nazi groups, he
was
appointed in 1977 to the original board of editors of Policy Review, a
journal published by the respected Heritage Foundation, a conservative
political research organization in Washington, D.C. Perhaps the clearest

indication of Pearson?s acceptance into the mainstream is the letter of
support he received from then President Ronald Reagan, thanking Pearson
for
his "substantial contribution to promotion and upholding those ideals
and
principles that we value at home and abroad."

J. PHILLIPE RUSHTON At the University of Western Ontario in Canada,
psychology professor J. Phillipe Rushton, who has benefited from more
than
$441,000 in Pioneer Fund awards from 1981-1992, argues that behavioral
differences among blacks, whites, and Asians are the result of
evolutionary
variations in their reproductive strategies. Blacks are at one extreme,
Rushton claims, because they produce large numbers of offspring but
offer
them little care; at the other extreme are Asians, who have fewer
children
but indulge them; whites lie somewhere in between (paper presented at
the
Symposium on Evolutionary Theory, Economics, and Political Science, AAAS

Annual Meeting, Jan. 19, 1989). Blacks, according to Rushton, have
larger
genitals, making them more promiscuous, and smaller brains, making them
less
intelligent than whites and Asians. Using 60 different measures, Rushton

ranks the races along an evolutionary scale with blacks at the bottom
and
Asians at the top.

Despite Rushton?s controversial race theories, he has been embraced by
the
scientific mainstream, having been elected a fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British,
and
Canadian Psychological Associations. He has published six books and
nearly
150 articles, one of which appeared in the October 1986 Proceedings of
the
National Academy of Sciences, under the sponsorship of Academy member E.
O.
Wilson.

In 1989 Rushton?s colleagues in the Behavior genetics Association (BGA)
protested his views. Five key officers of the BGA circulated a letter
dated
February 17 to the membership, calling Rushton?s work "insensitive,"
"repugnant," and "dubious scientifically." Today Rushton is an honored
member of the BGA; those who had opposed him have either resigned or
retired.

MICHAEL LEVIN >From 1991-1992, the Pioneer Fund awarded $124,500 to
philosophy professor Michael Levin of the City College of New York, who
in
1991 wrote in the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies
(edited
by the anti-Semitic Roger Pearson): "Race differences in intelligence
and
motivation are of the greatest significance for American society.
Blacks...
are reproducing more rapidly than whites. I have seen it estimated that
25%
of the population will be black and less than 50% white by the middle of
the
next century. This contingency was not foreseen by the founding fathers,
and
it is an open question whether liberal democracy can be sustained by a
population whose mean intelligence and self-restraint fall sufficiently
below Caucasoid norms." Dr. Levin?s solution is to slow black population

growth by ending public assistance.

EUGENICS AS RELIGION In many respects, eugenics displays the
characteristics
of religion more than science. Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), a cousin
of
Charles Darwin, coined the term "eugenics" in 1883, taking the word from
the
Greek "eugenes," which means "to be well born." Galton characterized
eugenics as a civic religion based on science. He hoped it would replace

Christianity, which he blamed for destroying the Roman Empire because of
its
teaching that the meek shall inherit the earth.

The theological expression of eugenics is called Beyondism, a term
coined by
world-renowned psychologist Raymond B. Cattell, professor emeritus at
the
University of Illinois. Based on evolutionary theory, Beyondism teaches
that
the brightest and wealthiest should inherit the earth; anything less
leads
to the survival of the unfit and the demise of civilization. Honored
recently by his students as one of "the 20th century?s most influential
behavior scientists," Dr. Cattell explained to an audience of leading
American psychologists that "much of mankind is obsolete... What we are
finding is we don?t have the brains to understand" our problems and "the

only real advance in science... is going to occur through breeding for
brain
size..." (Human Cognitive Abilities Conference, hosted by Jack McArdle,
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Sept. 22-24, 1994).

FRAUD AND EVASION IN TWIN STUDIES Those who seek to show that nature
supersedes nurture in influencing human behavior place great emphasis on

studies of identical (monozygotic) twins. Sir Cyril Burt, a famous
British
psychologist who set the standard for twins research, presented dramatic

statistical evidence in 1955, demonstrating that monozygotic twins
raised
apart displayed astonishing similarities. Burt was knighted in
recognition
of these discoveries and for reforming the British educational system by

introducing tracking based on IQ tests. In 1974, however, Princeton
psychologist Leon Kamin exposed Burt?s twin studies as fraudulent (The
Science and Politics of IQ). Kamin demonstrated arithmetically that Burt
has
worked backwards from his conclusions. Specifically, Burt had started
out in
1955 with 21 pairs of twins and found correlation?s of .771 between the
twins reared apart. By 1966 Burt?s research included 53 pairs of twins
but
his correlation?s were still .771. Kamin noted that such constancy was
"highly improbably" and after a careful review of Burt?s research,
concluded
that his twin studies were contrived. Kamin?s analysis was confirmed by
Leslie S. Hearnshaw, who delivered the eulogy at Burt?s funeral and, at
Marion Burt?s request wrote her brother?s biography. Hearnshaw
reluctantly
confirmed that Burt had engaged in serious fraud (Cyril Burt,
Psychologist,
1979). The Burt case helped trigger the contemporary concern for fraud
in
science.

THOMAS J. BOUCHARD, JR. With its legacy of Dr. Josef Mengele?s twin
experiments at Auschwitz and Dr. Burt?s bogus science, twin studies fell

into disfavor. In 1979, however, Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., a psychologist
at
the University of Minnesota, rehabilitated this line of research after
reading an account of twins who had been separated from birth and were
reunited at age 39. "The twins," Bouchard later wrote, "were found to
have
married women named Linda, divorced, and married the second time to
women
named Betty. One named his son James Allan, the other named his son
James
Alan, and both named their pet dogs Toy" (Times-Picayune, Feb. 16,
1990).

Intrigued by the report, Bouchard obtained emergency funds from the
university and arranged for the pair to be flown to him for study. To
support his theory that similarities such as these were genetic in
origin,
he assembled a team and applied for a grant to the Pioneer Fund in 1981,

stating, "Our findings continue to suggest a very strong genetic
influence
on almost all medical and psychological traits." To date, the Pioneer
Fund
has contributed more than $1.2 million to Bouchard?s Minnesota Center
for
Twin and Adoption Research.

Time, U.S. News and World Report, and the New York Times, among other
publications, and various TV programs have reported Bouchard?s
conclusions
that shyness, political conservatism, dedication to hard work,
orderliness,
intimacy, extroversion, conformity, and a host of other social traits
are
largely heritable. the scientific data and methods of analysis upon
which
his conclusions are based have to date never been released for objective

scrutiny.

Nevertheless, the prestigious journal Science invited Bouchard to
contribute
a key article in its June 17, 1994 edition, which included an editorial
reporting that a "new consensus" had been reached among behavioral
scientists in the nature vs. nurture debate: genes dominate.

Bouchard has cautiously refrained from making public statements that
might
be construed as racist, but he has defended the work of Phillipe
Rushton,
who has been outspoken about the genetic basis of racial differences in
IQ
and other character traits.

EUGENICS: FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION The ideological tradition of
eugenics has been carried on faithfully from generation to generation.
Sir
Francis Galton, the father of eugenics and the first to advocated the
study
of twins to differentiate the effects of heredity and environment on
human
nature, bequeathed his Chair of Eugenics at the University of London to
Karl
Pearson, who along with Charles Spearman in the Psychology department
competed for dominance in the field. Spearman was succeeded by Sir Cyril

Burt, who served as mentor to Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck. Arthur
Jensen studied with Eysenck and Shockley. Tony Vernon, a student of
Jensen?s, is now working with Rushton at the University of Western
Ontario.
And Rushton?s student, Maria R. Phelps, who published an article on her
mentor?s racial hierarchy theory in Roger Pearson?s Mankind Quarterly
(Spring, 1993), is now applying for a university position. Galton?s
heirs
have supported one another?s theories, and , since the 1960s, have
shared in
the bounty provided so generously by the Pioneer Fund.

If the eugenic vision prevails, as it did in Nazi Germany, we can expect
a
new world order with a genetic caste system, officiated by bureaucrats
in
white coats, deciding who shall breed and who shall be barren.
Individual
choice and responsibility would be deemed incompatible with the state
credo
"Biology is Destiny," and the "genetically inferior" would be eliminated

from our society.

Let us pray that, this time, the final solution does not go beyond
science
fiction.

 Sidebar

                    EUGENICS IN AMERICA: A BRIEF HISTORY

 America?s experimentation with genetics as a tool for social change is
not
 new. In the 1920s the United States became the world center of eugenic
 activity and social policy. From 1907-1960 more than 100,000 innocent
 Americans were sterilized in more than 30 states. In the 1930s and
1940s
 Hitler?s scientists took eugenics to the extreme - establishing human
 breeding farms for "Aryans," large-scale sterilization and euthanasia
 programs for the mentally and physically disabled, and death camps for
the
 races they deemed "genetically inferior" or "unworthy life."

 Both the American and German eugenics movements of the 1920s and 30s
 identified human beings as either hereditarily valuable or inferior.
They
 established programs to purify the "race" of "lower grade" and
 "degenerate" groups, thus extending racism to include a new generic
 classification - the "genetically inferior." Not surprisingly, the
targets
 always turned out to be the traditional victims of racism - Jews,
Gypsies,
 Blacks, Indians, and other minorities.

 After Hitler?s defeat, the American eugenics movement fell into
disfavor,
 appealing primarily to the KKK, neo-Nazis, and a small groups of
old-line
 scientists steeped in the racist theories of the pre-war period. In the

 1960s their key spokesman was Stanford physicist William Shockley, who
was
 the first to suggest offering cash incentives to people with low IQ
scores
 who would agree to sterilization. He called his proposal the "voluntary

 sterilization bonus plan." Despite his status as a Noble laureate,
 Professor Shockley was widely regarded as a racist and a kook within
the
 academic community. Nevertheless, he laid the foundation upon which the

 new eugenics movement would eventually be resurrected.

 In 1974, Federal District Court Judge Gerhard Gesell estimated that
"over
 the last few years" between 100,000 and 150,000 low-income persons were

 sterilized under federally funded programs. Ruling on behalf of
plaintiffs
 in a class action suit, Judge Gesell stated that "an indefinite number"
of
 those sterilized were "improperly coerced" into accepting
sterilization.
 Judge Gesell observed that "the dividing line between family planning
and
 eugenics was murky" (Relf v. Weinberger et. al. U.S. District Court of
 D.C., March 15, 1974). In may cases welfare patients were told that
they
 could lose their benefits if they did not submit to the sterilization
 procedure. On September 21, 1975 The New York Times Magazine reported
that
 doctors in major cities were routinely performing hysterectomies on
mostly
 black welfare recipients as a form of sterilization, a practice that
came
 to be known euphemistically among medical insiders as the "Mississippi
 appendectomy."

 Today those who advocate eugenics have access to far more sophisticated

 technologies than those of their pre-war predecessors. For example,
 Norplant, a drug approved by the FDA in 1990, provides an alternative
to
 permanent sterilization for women by preventing pregnancy for up to
five
 years. A popular proposal to reduce the birthrate among welfare
recipients
 and unwed teens is to induce them, through monetary incentives of the
 threat of a loss of benefits, to have Norplant surgically implanted in
 their upper arm. In 1991, Kansas representative Kerry Patrick defended
a
 proposal to offer $500 to any welfare mother who accepted Norplant,
saying
 the program "has the potential to save the taxpayers millions of their
 hard-earned dollars. Something must be done to reduce the number of
 unwanted pregnancies..." (The New York Times, Feb. 9, 1991).

 In 1994, legislators in Connecticut and Florida introduced bills that
 would provide cash bonuses for welfare recipients who accepted
Norplant.
 Florida and Colorado have introduced incentive programs for men to
accept
 sterilization. the Florida bill would offer $400 to men living below
the
 poverty line for undergoing a vasectomy; the Colorado bill would allow
 criminals early release. While none of these bills has yet become law,
the
 momentum for eugenic solutions is growing. If current trends continue,
we
 can expect to see such sterilization programs gain legal sanction
across
 America.

 Sidebar #2

                        THE GENETICIZATION OF AMERICA

 The study of behavior genetics reflects a new orientation to science
and
 social problems that Harvard University biologist Ruth Hubbard refers
to
 as "geneticization" or reductionism.

 Geneticization refers to the process of reducing differences between
 individuals to their DNA codes. Behavioral differences, diseases,
talents,
 and intelligence are all seen as genetic in origin. It also refers to
the
 process by which interventions employing genetic technologies and drugs

 are adopted to manage health problems. Geneticization exaggerates the
 importance of genetics and minimizes the effects of environment.

 Geneticization tends to encourage a view of people as a collection of
tiny
 discrete parts, rather than as whole human beings. It also tends to
 transfer power from the individual and the community to the specialist.
If
 our fate is written in our DNA, then only a genetic engineer can cure
our
 depression, prevent diabetes, and solve larger social problems.
 Increasingly we have been entrusting ourselves and our society to
 specialists who supposedly can solve medical and social problems at the

 microscopic level.

 Geneticization is reductionism, the process of reducing complex things
to
 their smallest parts. In biology, reductionism fosters the belief that
our
 behavior can be explained by studying the molecules and atoms that make
up
 our DNA. In the biological sciences, the status and prestige once
enjoyed
 by naturalists has shifted to molecular biologists who tend to believe
 that work at the molecular level will yield a more profound
understanding
 of nature than the study of entire organisms. Today, the work of
 naturalists is often dismissed as fuzzy science.

 The Human Genome Project, the mapping of the human genetic code, is
 reductionism at its most extreme. Critics of this thinking, such as
 Hubbard, caution that mapping our the human genetic code will not
reveal
 the meaning of life or supply answers to the social and political
issues
 facing the world. "The myth of the all-powerful gene," she says, "is
based
 on flawed science that discounts the environmental context in which we
and
 our genes exist." She warns that "it can lead to genetic discrimination

 and hazardous, medical manipulations." In other words, we must beware
of
 scientists who wish to play G-d.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2