Content area
Hum Genet (2008) 124:291292 DOI 10.1007/s00439-008-0550-4
BOOK REVIEW
Jan A. Witkowski and John R. Inglis (eds): Davenports dream. Twenty-Wrst century reXections on heredity and eugenics
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 2008, 490 pages ISBN 978-0-87969-756-3, $55
Ian D. Young
Published online: 25 August 2008 Springer-Verlag 2008
In the minds of the general public, genetics and eugenics are inextricably linked as anyone who has tried to extol the virtues of research in human or medical genetics to a lay audience will soon have discovered. Whilst much of the explanation for this apparent confusion can be attributed to the appalling atrocities which were perpetrated in Nazi Germany, a signiWcant proportion owes its origins to the writings of Charles Benedict Davenport and in particular to his book Heredity in Relation to Eugenics Wrst published in 1911. Davenport, as Director of the Biological Laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor, founded the famous/infamous Eugenics Record OYce and was an enthusiastic lifelong advocate of eugenic practice. The impending centenary of his publication coupled with ongoing progress in genomics have prompted this publication of ten essays, each written by acknowledged luminaries in the Weld of human genetics.
The editors have thoughtfully included a complete reproduction of Davenports book, from which it is clear that he held some extremely strong and what would now be regarded as both misguided and disagreeable views. In his opinion human progress will cease without the implementation of eugenic practices. The program of the eugenicist should include inducing young people to fall in love intelligently and allowing the state to control the propagation of the mentally incompetent, if necessary by long-term incarceration or enforced sterilisation. Undesirable traits included imbecility, insanity, epilepsy, pauperism, sexual immorality, alcoholism, craving for narcotics and criminality, as well as a tendency to numerous diseases such as tuberculosis, rickets and cancer. To these dubious qualities
of intolerance and Puritanism can be added racismthe Irish display the traits of alcoholism, mental defectiveness and a tendency to lie, Greeks are slovenly and Jews demonstrate intense individualism and ideals of gain at the cost of any interest. In an ominous portent of events to come Germans are described as thrifty, intelligent and honest.
Davenport imbued his eugenic views with a veneer of pseudoscientiWc respectability by devoting over half of his book to contemporary, and often incorrect, interpretation of the genetic basis of human characteristics and diseases, prompting Philip Reilly to point out that, in some ways, this could be regarded as the Wrst ever handbook on genetic counselling. Davenports conclusions were strongly inXuenced by the recent rediscovery of Mendelism, to the extent that he was prone to try to force single gene inheritance as the explanation for a host of human characteristics ranging from catarrhal infections to mental disability and musical prowess.
Had he restricted his thoughts to straightforward genetics, he would probably be remembered as a worthy pioneer, who was in many ways ahead of his time. Unfortunately his dogmatic and somewhat muddled musings on eugenics coincided with widespread concern in the US and parts of Europe at the possible adverse eVects of uncontrolled immigration and reproduction by the socially disadvantaged. The devastating consequences, admittedly indirect, of Davenports dangerous thinking are outlined with depressing clarity by James Watson who reminds the reader that 30 North American states had enacted compulsory sterilisation legislation by the start of World War II. However, this pales into insigniWcance when compared with the 400,000 forced sterilisations undertaken in Germany between 1934 and 1939, followed by the murder of 94,000 mental patients and the subsequent annihilation of at least six million Jews.
I. D. Young (&)
Department of Clinical Genetics,Leicester Royal InWrmary, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK e-mail: [email protected]
123
292 Hum Genet (2008) 124:291292
Predictably and understandably, these events have designated discussion of negative eugenics (the reduction of disadvantageous genes/traits in the population) as a no-go area, with none of the distinguished essayists venturing any further than to raise a plea for rational discourse. In contrast several speculate on prospects for positive eugenics (promoting advantageous traits) and how society will respond to developments in human genetics that could be used to enhance characteristics such as intelligence, athleticism, beauty and perhaps most plausibly, disease resistance. James Watson opens the discussion with a characteristically robust defence of the rights of the individual over those of the state (in complete contrast to Davenport who maintained that the rights of society over the life, reproduction, behaviour and traits of its citizens were limitless). If technology exists to improve the welfare and capabilities of our children, Watson argues that a case can be made for applying it. Maynard Olson argues cogently that the real debate will emerge with the development of boutique eugenics combining the existing skills of preimplantation diagnosis with knowledge of the genetic basis of traits such as intelligence and physical appearance. Ronald Dworkin, in discussing the chance/choice distinction between genetic lottery and genetic manipulation acknowledges that playing God is indeed playing with Wre, but this
is what humans do because to do otherwise is an irresponsible cowardice. Lewis Wolpert in reviewing how genes inXuence behaviour argues that fear of genetics is misplaced and wonders why biological moralists do not turn their attention instead to the motor car which kills or injures more than 50,000 annually.
The title of this stimulating collection of well written essays, Davenports Dream, relates to his no doubt well intended aspiration that advances in genetics should be directed and applied to improve human existence. Sadly his contribution was almost certainly counter-productive and, as other authors in this text point out even if ethically acceptable, it is diYcult to see how eugenics could be applied successfully given the genetic complexity underlying most common human diseases and characteristics. Indeed genetic diversity is widely perceived as desirable if not essential for the future progress and survival of the species, so that any attempt to discriminate against a particular genotype could have adverse consequences in the future. Perhaps the main message of this book is that we should all learn from Davenports mistakes and remember that the welfare of the individual should never be sacriWced for a greater vision of spurious societal beneWt. Otherwise we run the risk of seeing Davenports dream evolve into another nightmare.
123
Springer-Verlag 2008