by Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD
There are stories in science that carry both brilliance and
burden—stories that reflect our most profound attempts to better humanity and
yet reveal how deeply flawed those efforts can become when driven by a
dangerous moral certainty. One of those stories is eugenics.
The term “eugenics” might sound clinical or academic to many
today, a relic buried somewhere between forgotten biology textbooks and World
War II documentaries. Yet, in its time, it was not only a scientific idea—it
was a movement, a philosophy, and even a political agenda. It promised a better
human race through the selective encouragement or discouragement of
reproduction. But as we peel back the layers, what is uncovered is less a tale
of scientific progress and more a narrative of misguided moral ambition, cloaked
in the language of science.
The Galtonian Dream: The Roots of Eugenics
It was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who
first coined the term “eugenics” in 1883. Galton envisioned a noble goal: to
improve the human race through careful selection, much like the selective
breeding of animals. His idea, now referred to as positive eugenics, emphasized
the encouragement of the “best and brightest” to reproduce more abundantly. For
Galton, the pursuit was moral; he believed that science had the potential to
elevate humanity to unprecedented heights (Kevles, 1985).
But even early on, there was a darker twin to this
dream—negative eugenics. While positive eugenics hoped to inspire reproduction
among the fit, negative eugenics aimed to prevent the unfit from reproducing at
all. And in time, it was this second philosophy that gained more traction in
state policy, especially in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavian
countries.
Degeneracy Theory and the Fear of “Bad Blood”
A belief system known as degeneracy theory planted the seeds of eugenics centuries earlier. This theory, which held sway well
into the 19th century, claimed that social and biological failures—mental
illness, criminality, even poverty—were hereditary conditions caused by the
deterioration of the human stock (Pick, 1989). Environmental toxins, moral
decay, and yes, even masturbation (then called “onanism”) were believed to
damage not just the body but future generations.
Such beliefs were not just idle superstition. They shaped
law and medicine. In 1899, Dr. Harry Clay Sharp, a prison physician in Indiana,
began sterilizing inmates—men he believed were degenerates. By 1907, the first
state-mandated sterilization law was enacted in Indiana, requiring the
sterilization of prisoners, the mentally ill, and other individuals deemed
“unfit” (Lombardo, 2008).
Scientific Ideals and Agricultural Analogies
Early in the 20th century, eugenics started to adopt a scientific approach. Its proponents borrowed freely from agricultural science and genetics,
applying Mendelian inheritance theories to human populations. The idea was
simple: if a farmer could breed a stronger horse or a more fruitful plant, why
not a healthier human being?
The Eugenics Record Office, established by Charles Davenport
and Harry Laughlin, exemplified this trend. These men, who originally worked
with chickens and crops, now turned their attention to humans. They charted
family trees, documented criminal records, and declared the need to remove "bad stock" from the human gene pool (Davenport, 1911).
What’s striking is how clinical and unemotional their
rhetoric was. The language was efficient, like that of a botanist pruning a
tree. But behind it were real people—patients, prisoners,
immigrants—individuals who were institutionalized or sterilized, often without
full consent or understanding.
The Jukes, the Kallikaks, and the Demonization of Poverty
The movement also drew on social research to build its case.
Richard Dugdale’s study of the Jukes family in 1877 painted a bleak picture of
hereditary criminality and poverty. Similarly, Henry H. Goddard’s infamous work
on the “Kallikak Family” claimed to demonstrate how a single act of
indiscretion—one illegitimate child—had bred generations of “feeblemindedness”
(Gould, 1981). These studies were often cited as proof that poverty,
criminality, and mental illness were genetically determined.
Such research, later discredited, had real consequences.
Immigrants were refused entry at ports, children were institutionalized, and
families were torn apart—all under the banner of improving the race.
Eugenics and Medicine: The Pathologizing of the Poor
It wasn’t just scientists and politicians who promoted
eugenics. Doctors, too, embraced it. Some viewed social deviance as a form of
illness—a hereditary disease to be prevented, not cured. Italian criminologist
Cesare Lombroso declared that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks,
“atavisms” of a more primitive human past.
In Germany, public health physician Rudolph Virchow blended
the ideals of racial hygiene with state medicine. German-trained physicians, who championed "preventive eugenics," exported his ideas to America. As institutions became overcrowded with individuals deemed "undesirable," sterilization was viewed as a "humane" solution. If they could not be helped, they could at least be
prevented from reproducing.
Doctors like Harry Sharp argued that sterilization was not
punishment but compassion. It spared patients from lifelong
institutionalization and spared the public the cost of their care. But beneath
this reasoning was a terrible assumption—that some people were simply unworthy
of existence as full members of society.
When Eugenics Becomes Policy
By the 1930s, more than 30 U.S. states had passed
sterilization laws. By 1940, over 60,000 Americans had been forcibly
sterilized. Many of these were women of color, immigrants, the poor, or those
with disabilities.
These practices were supported by the U.S. Supreme Court,
most notoriously in Buck v. Bell (1927), when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
infamously declared, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” It was a
ruling that echoed for decades.
Germany took the logic of eugenics to horrifying extremes.
The Nazi T4 program, which began with forced sterilizations, culminated in the
mass murder of those deemed “life unworthy of life.” It was not a deviation
from eugenic logic, but its full realization (Lifton, 1986).
The Turn Away—But Not Completely
After World War II, eugenics became a taboo word. The
horrors of the Holocaust forced many nations to confront the dangerous paths
that pseudoscience can take. Yet, the ideas behind eugenics—about who is
worthy, who is fit, who is “better”—never completely disappeared.
Even today, modern genetics and reproductive technology
raise challenging ethical questions. Where is the line between choice and
coercion? Between prevention and discrimination?
In retrospect, what began as a hopeful dream for some—a
dream of curing illness, ending poverty, and perfecting mankind—was built on a
foundation of fear, classism, racism, and ableism. It is a cautionary tale that
reminds us: when science becomes untethered from compassion, humility, and
human rights, it can become a dangerous ideology.
A Personal Reflection
As an educator, public servant, and advocate for justice, I,
Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, reflect on this chapter of human history not with
detachment, but with a deep sense of responsibility. We cannot afford to forget
how easy it is for science to be weaponized when we lose sight of the human
beings behind the data.
Eugenics, though wrapped in the promise of human progress,
was ultimately an ideology that divided, hurt, and dehumanized. It’s a reminder
that the worth of a human being is not found in their IQ, lineage, or
productivity—but in their inherent dignity as a person.
May we never again mistake precision for wisdom or ambition
for ethics. And may we always remember: science serves humanity, not the other
way around.
References (APA Style, Pre-2010)
• Davenport, C. B. (1911). Heredity in Relation to Eugenics.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.
• Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: W.
W. Norton & Company.
• Kevles, D. J. (1985). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics
and the Uses of Human Heredity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing
and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.
• Lombardo, P. A. (2008). Three Generations, No Imbeciles:
Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
• Pick, D. (1989). Faces of Degeneration: A European
Disorder, c. 1848–c. 1918. Cambridge University Press.
