This article explores the accounts of eugenics made by a small but important group of
British scientists and clinicians working on the new genetics as applied to human health.
These scientists and clinicians used special rhetorical strategies for distancing the new
genetics from eugenics and to sustain their professional autonomy. They drew a number
of boundaries or distinctions between eugenics and their own field, describing eugenics
as politically distorted "bad science, " as being technically unfeasible, a feature of
totalitarian regimes, the abuse of neutral knowledge, and as the manipulation of the
population's gene pool as opposed to diagnosing and treating individuals with genetic
conditions. Their more sophisticated defense strategies invoked the importance of
individual choice and the relationship between nature and nurture. The article highlights
the ambiguities and difficulties in professionals' use of this rhetoric, drawing on historical
and sociological analyses of eugenics, genetics, and medical science and technology
more broadly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, M. B., ed. 1990. The wellborn science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil and Russia.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
Allen, G.1976. Genetics, eugenics and society: Internalists and externalists in contemporary history of scienceSocial Studies of Science6:105-222.
3.
-. 1987. The role of experts in scientific controversy In Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology, edited by H. T. Engelhardt and A. L. Caplan, 169-202. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Alper, J.1992. The allure of genetic explanationsBritish Medical Journal305 (19): 666.
5.
-. 1996. Biological influences on criminal behaviour: How good is the evidence?British Medical Journal310(6975): 272-73
6.
. Bailey, R.1996. Prenatal testing and the prevention of impairment: A woman's right to choose? In Encounters with strangers: Feminism and disability, edited by J. Morris, 143-67. London : Women's Press.
7.
Barker, D.1989. The biology of stupidity: Genetics, eugenics and mental deficiency in the inter-war yearsBritish Journal of History of Science22:347-76.
8.
Beck, U.1992. The risk societyLondon: Sage.
9.
Bodmer, W., and R. McKie.1995. The book of man: The quest to discover our genetic heritageLondon: Abacus .
10.
Brand, C.1996. The g factor. General intelligence and its implicationsLondon: John Wiley & Sons .
11.
British Medical Association.1992. Our genetic future: The science and ethics of genetic technologyOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
Butler, D.1995. Geneticist quits in protest at "genes and violence" claimNature378.224.
13.
Clarke, A.1995a. Commentary: Cost effectiveness of antenatal screening for cystic fibrosisBritish Medical Journal311 (7018): 1463-64.
14.
-. 1995b. Population screening for genetic susceptibility to diseaseBritish Medical Journal311(6996): 35-38.
15.
Clarke, A., P. Harper, P.F. Unsworth, J. Scotson, and P. Doherty.1995. Eugenics in ChinaThe Lancet346 (8973): 508.
16.
Culliton, B.1995. Politics and genesNature Medicine1 (3): 181.
17.
Davis, B.1991. The genetic revolution: Scientific prospects and public perceptionBaltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
18.
Davison, C., S. MacIntyre, and G.D. Smith.1994. The potential social impact of predictive genetic testing for susceptibility to common chronic disease: A review and proposed research agendaSociology of Health and Illness16 (3): 340-71.
19.
Fujimura, J.1996. Crafting science: A sociohistory of the quest for the genetics of cancerCambndge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
Giddens, A.1991. The consequences of modernityCambridge, UK: Polity.
21.
Gieryn, T.1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientistsAmerican Sociological Review48781-95
22.
. Harper, P.1995. Genetic testing, common diseases and health service provisionThe Lancet346 ( 8991): 1645-46.
23.
Harper, P., and A. Clarke.1995. Genetic testing for familial hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in newborn infants: Testing may be unhelpfulBritish Medical Journal310 (6983): 856-59.
24.
Harwood, J.1989. Genetics, eugenics and evolutionBritish Journal of History of Science22:257-65.
25.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.1995. Human genetics: The science and its consequenceLondon: HMSO.
26.
Hubbard, R.1995. Profitable promises: Essays on women, science and healthMonroe, ME: Common Courage Press .
27.
Jones, S.1994. The language of the genesLondon : Flamingo.
28.
Kay, L.E.1996. The molecular vision of life: The Rockefeller Foundation and the rise of the new biologyOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
29.
Kevles, D.1986. In the name of eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredityBerkeley: University of California Press.
30.
Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and A. Amos.1997. The new genetics: Professionals' discursive boundariesSociological Review45 (2): 279-303.
31.
Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and A. Amos.1998. The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertisePublic Understanding of Science7: 41-60.
32.
Lewontin, R.C.1991. The doctrine of DNA: Biology as ideologyLondon: Penguin.
33.
Lippman, A.1994. The genetic construction of prenatal testing: Choice, consent, or conformity for women? In Women and prenatal testing: Facing the challenges of genetic technology, edited by K. H Rothenberg and E. J. Thomas, 9-34. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
34.
Ludmerer, K.1989. American geneticists and the eugenics movement, 1905-1935Journal of the History of Heredity30:371-73.
35.
MacKenzie, D.1976Eugenics in BritainSocial Studies of Science6:499-532.
36.
-. 1978. Statistical theory and social interests: Case studySocial Studies of Science8:35-83.
37.
MacKenzie, D., and J. Wacjman. 1985, eds. The social shaping of technology: How the refrigerator got its hum.Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
38.
Moran, N.1995. Role of genetics and criminal behaviour debatedNature Medicine1 (4): 286-87.
39.
Nelkin, D.1994. Promotional metaphors and their popular appealPublic Understanding of Science3:25-31.
40.
Nelkin, D., and S. Lindee.1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural iconNew York: W. H. Freeman.
41.
Nelkin, D. and L. Tancredi.1989. Dangerous diagnostics: The social power of biological information. New York: Basic Books.
42.
Norton, B.1983. Fisher's entrance into evolutionary science: The role of eugenics In Dimensions of Darwinism , edited by M. Grere, 19-29. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics.1993. Genetic screening. Ethical issuesLondon: Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
44.
Paul, D.1984. Eugenics and the LeftJournal of History of Ideas45:567-90.
45.
-. 1995. Controlling human heredity: 1865 to the presentAtlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press
46.
Proctor, R.1988. Racial hygiene: Medicine under the NazisCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
47.
Questions of intelligence1995. Nature Genetics9 (1): 97-98.
48.
Rapp, R.1988. Chromosomes and communication: The discourse of genetic counsellingMedical Anthropology Quarterly2:143-57.
49.
Rich, V.1995. China's law on maternal and infant healthThe Lancet345(8963): 1497-98.
50.
Richards, M.P.M.1989. Social and ethical problems of foetal diagnosis and screeningJournal of Reproduction and Infant Psychology7:171-85.
51.
Roll-Hansen, N.1989. Geneticists and the eugenics movement in ScandinaviaBritish Journal of History of Science22:335-46.
52.
Rose, H.1994Love, power and knowledgeCambridge, UK: Polity.
53.
Rose, H., and S. Rose, eds. 1976a. The political economy of science.London: Macmillan .
54.
-, eds. 1976b The radicalisation of science.London: Macmillan.
55.
Rose, S.1995. The rise of neurogenetic determinismNature373:380-82.
56.
Rothman, B.K.1986The tentative pregnancy: Prenatal diagnosis and the future ofmotherhoodNew York: Viking.
Schmidtke, J.1994. Proceed with much more cautionHuman Genetics94:25-27.
59.
Shakespeare, T.1995a. Back to the future? New genetics and disabled peopleCritical Social Policy46:22-35
60.
-. 1995b. Disabled people and the new genetics. Genethics News5:8-11.
61.
Shepherd, J., and D. Farrington.1995. Preventing cnme and violenceBritish Medical Journal310 (6975): 271-72.
62.
Shinn, T., and R. Whitley, eds. 1985. Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation. Sociology of the Sciences Volume 9. Dordrecht: Reidel.
63.
Soothill, J.F.1995. Biological influences on criminal behaviourBritish Medical Journal310 (6990): 1332-33.
64.
Stone, D., and S. Stewart.1996. Screening and the new genetics: A public health perspective on the ethical debateJournal of Public Health Medicine18 (1): 3-5.
