The Theoretician and the Experimenter - Eugenics and Francis Galton - Essay Example

The Theoretician and the Experimenter - Eugenics and Francis Galton Francis Galton is considered as the father of Eugenics, which is a partially fictitious science that believes that human intellect and character can be engineered to improve the genetic characteristics of human race. Cowan (509) has described the work of Francis Galton as “science stimulated by political theories and directed toward social goals.” Waller (142) has called Galton, a scientific careerist who believed in the “heritability of intelligence” and who tried to prove this using “pedigree data.” Galton had believed that any natural law could be reformatted into a comprehensible form by mathematizing them (Cowan, 511). He tried to apply this concept in understanding heredity and in the future prospect of manipulating it to gain social goals. And the basic premise of his theory was that the environment of a human being had no influence on his character or intelligence (Cowan, 516). Marks has described Eugenics as an attempt to interpret, “cultural history in fundamental biological terms” (650). Galton’s thought is further explained by Marks by introducing Galton’s belief that “cultural ‘progress’ was driven principally by the birth rate of geniuses regardless of any other social processes” (650). Between 1910 and 1930, Eugenics had dominated all research works and beliefs in the field of genetics and biology but after this period, the entire concept was questioned and almost discarded (Marks, 650). Galton: The theoretician and the experimenter Galton had conceptualized Eugenics as the science of cultivating “better men and women,” on the similar lines of cultivating “better plants and animals” (Farrall, 111). Farrall has observed that for Galton, Eugenics was “the basis of a scientific religion, which could lead to the Utopian situation where problems such as alcoholism, criminality, disease and poverty had disappeared” (111). Galton thought that once he could find out the exact ways in which intelligence and behavioral characteristics transmitted from parents to children, such social engineering will be made possible. The motivation for Galton to develop Eugenics was a belief that “statistics would solve the problem of heredity and that heredity, once understood, could be used to resolve the political and social contexts that plague the race of men” (Cowan, 510). Thus Galton wanted to create a “perfect Eugenic state” (Cowan, 510). The first question that he started with, was, “can extraordinary intellectual gifts be inherited?” (Cowan, 510). He started his work by “counting the number of men listed in a biographical dictionary who were relatives of some one else on the list” and then based on this, he published the book, “Hereditary talent and Character” (Cowan, 511). In this book, his claim was that more than tenth of …(the intellectually eminent individuals whom he studied) …had close relatives who were also in the dictionary” of intellectually eminent individuals that he examined (Fancher, 87). But the counter-arguments for this theory was forthcoming, as it was evident that intellectually eminent elites that he examined might be having environmental similarities as well. The next step adopted by Galton was to incorporate the “calculus of probabilities” into “his analysis of mental heredity” (Cowan, 511-12). He tried to rank geniuses using “some standard measurement of genius” and the “law of deviations” (Cowan, 512). Galton counted the British population approximately as fifteen million males (a male chauvinist that he was, if considered from a present day perspective) and tried to count “extremely brilliant and extremely stupid men” (Cowan, 512). As he had no authentic additional data to perfect this investigation, all his further enquiries were focused on getting better sources of data in this regard (Cowan, 512). To measure the variations in intelligence of the entire population, Galton collected data from all the public schools in the country (Cowan, 515). He also tried to use Darwin’s theory of pangenesis to quantify data on heredity, even with the support of Darwin, and failed miserably (Cowan, 515). Galton used binomial expansions to prepare a model for heredity and correlated this concept with nature and nurture dichotomy (Cowan, 515). This attempt also was a failure. Galton had refuted Darwin’s theory of pangenesis after conducting tests using rabbits and then went on to formulate the concept of nature-nurture dichotomy (Fancher, 89). He repeated his experiments on heredity using same sex twins as well (Fancher, 89). The next experiment of Galton was with sweat pea, which he himself cultivated and also made his friends to cultivate and send the yield to him for analysis (Fancher, 90; Cowan, 516-517). Parallel to this experiment, an experiment on the height and weight of school boys also went on (Cowan, 517). The sweat pea experiment was an attempt to measure “the change in populations over several generations” so that he can support the school boy statistics with this secondary data (Cowan, 517). Thus, Galton thought, the variation among one generation and among different generations could be measured. With his sweat pea experiment, Galton was able to prove that heredity in general has a tendency to clutter to the mean or show great variations from the mean, but when taken altogether, a second generation will be the replica of the first generation (Cowan, 518). Suppose, for example, we take the case of the height of individuals, it will be shown that “individuals may not be as tall as their parents”, but “there will be as many giants (in a population) as there were before” (Cowan, 518). Thus Dalton developed a probabilistic model of heredity (Cowan, 519). In his sweat pea experiment, Galton plotted the: Diameter of the mother seeds …against the diameter of their offspring…drew a graph with parental seed size on one axis and the filial size on the other; he marked the body of the graph wherever parental size and mean filial size intersected. When the karks were connected, they formed a straight line with a measurable slope (Cowan, 519). Galton called this slope, “coefficient of regression” which became a new discovery in statistics, and all the same, he could prove with this, “every progenitor contributes to the heritage of the offspring…(and)…the offspring tend toward the mean of the race” (Cowan, 519). In 1884, under the guidance of Galton, Macmillan published the ‘Record of family faculties’ and 150 records got filled and sent back to Galton (Cowan, 521). Galton also set up an Anthropometric Laboratory at The International Health Exhibition at the South Kensington Science Museum which charged 3 shillings from each individual to get their “ Height, Weight, Span, Breathing Power, Strenght of Pull and Squeeze, Quickness of Blow, Hearing, Seeing, Colour Sense and Other Personal Data” measured (Cowan, 521). Galton had rightly guessed that the “speed of information processing is the basis of general ability” and had based his assumptions about an individual’s general ability on his “reaction time” (Jensen, 157). This data collection was an excellent step as Galton got data on 9337 persons (Cowan, 521). Analysing the data of “928 offspring and their parents” using the coefficient of regression principle, Galton found that “the number of individuals who were nearly mediocre is so preponderant, that an exceptional man is more frequently found to be the exceptional son of mediocre parents than the average son of very exceptional parents” (cited by Cowan, 522). And he extended his findings to the inference that “the processes of heredity are probabilistic” (Cowan, 522). Plotting the data he had acquired, “brother on brother…uncles on nephews…cousins on cousins…(and)…grandsons on grandparents”, Galton formulated his law of ancestral inheritance (Cowan, 524). He declared that “each parent contributes ¼ of the heritage, each grandparent 1/8, each great grandparent 1/16 and so on” (Cowan, 524). Future researchers would discard many laws of Galton developed like this as farcical but the investigative spirit and passion of Galton on this topic was to be accepted as unparalleled. Galton also tried to study the relations between physiological variables like arm length, height etc. within an individual and between him and his father (Cowan, 525). This investigation resulted in the discovery of another statistical tool, the correlation coefficient, but he somehow could not use this tool effectively in his further research on Eugenics (Cowan, 527). Galton’s inference that general intelligence is “highly heritable” has been proved correct by successive researchers (Jensen, 154). But it has also been proven that general intelligence is “not as heritable as certain polygenic physical features such as stature and fingerprints” (Jensen, 154). Molecular genetics has also proved that “behavioral tendencies…(are)…a product of a combination of multiple genes interacting with certain environmental conditions to produce their observable effects” which partially substantiate and partially refute Galton’s theories (Jensen, 155). Galton and Darwin’s theory of evolution It was after Dalton read, the book by Charles Darwin, “On The Origin of Species”, that he got greatly drawn to the questions of heredity and the book prompted him to think that, “the study of heredity would yield a viable technique for improving mankind, that over a period of time, men could be bred for intelligence and character in precisely the same way that animals are bred for strength or agility” (Cowan, 511). After reading “Theory of Evolution,” Galton himself had written to Darwin that “I have laid it [the Origin] down in the full enjoyment of a feeling….of having been initiated into an entirely new province of knowledge” (cited by Waller, 146). Galton was so influenced by Darwin’s theory that he set aside his career as a geographer and began to pursue ideas connected to the theory of evolution (Waller,146; Farrall, 112). Fancher has suggested that Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species” had “precipitated a religious and philosophical crisis in Galton” which he tried to resolve through his further life and this led to the evolution of Eugenics by him (84). Galton’s research on the behavior of pack animals was in line with Darwin’s interest in domesticated animals and the reasons for their domestication (Waller, 148). This was taken up after he read the book, “The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication,” written by Darwin (Fancher, 88). His next attempt was to assign grades to intellect which he did in his book, ‘Hereditary Genius’ (Fancher, 88). And of course, Darwin wrote Galton a laudatory letter after reading this book (Fancher, 89). Some critics have accused, it was a craving for easy fame that prompted him to divert his work into Darwinism, and that he was a man “who shunned competition, disliked fields requiring extensive preparatory learning, and …keen to make an early impression” (Waller, 145). But as we go through the time-consuming and extensive statistical work of Galton on heredity, such accusations fall short of having any real basis. But as Waller has pointed out, Galton was always eager to get the approval of Darwin, who was his half cousin as well (Waller,146-148). Galton’s theories and the works of Mendel The “success of Mendalism in biology” has been seen as one element which helped Eugenics to gain ground as a science, though for a brief period in history (Marks, 650). The gene concept had developed from the work of Gregor Mendel and the correlation studies done among blood relatives by Galton got an interpretational basis in this (Vogel and Motulsky, 208). It was logical to associate the correlations between relatives with the “action of individual genes” (Vogel and Motulsky, 208). Thus Mendel’s work was rediscovered by Galtonian researchers to substantiate their claims. In retrospection, Galton’s approach is categorized as phenomenological or less deep because further research had shown that the similarity between relatives as pointed out by Galton could have been caused either by the action of genes alone or by other contributory factors like environmental elements and occasional dominance (Vogel and Motulsky, 208). But the concept of gene, developed by Mendel, still holds its sway in understanding human genetics. Hence his theory has been accepted as deeper and representational (Vogel and Motulsky, 209). But the Galtonian techniques and methodology have been considered still relevant in the study of genetics, as Mendel’s gene theory has no scope for being tested directly on living humans (Vogel and Motulsky, 209). Contributions to genetics studies Galton introduced along with a few others, the concept of biostatistics (Cowan, 509). He has been instrumental in developing the statistical concepts of regression and correlation (Cowan, 509). The Eugenics Laboratory and the Statistics Department of University College, London were established and financially supported by Galton (Cowan, 509). The statistical concepts devised by Galton had been useful in many empirical studies in Biology and genetics (Farral, 119-120). Galton’s methodologies and findings have also “laid foundations for psychometrics and human behavioral genetics” (Jensen, 145). This scientist, though considered by many as a dilettante of science, is also considered as the initiator of “differential psychology” (Jensen, 146). The twin method experimented with for the first time by Galton, later on became a “principal tool of quantitative genetics and behavioral genetics” (Jensen, 148). When a survey of the common beliefs among social Darwinists was done by Mike Hawkins, the common world view that emerged was made up of elements like: The acceptance of Darwin’s theories of natural selection and evolution; an agreement with Malthus’ warning that an infinite population growth in a world of finite resources would result in social chaos; a belief in biological determinism; the fear of the newly arrived immigrant; and an assent to Galton’s call for better breeding (Cullen, 408). This indicates how deep has been the influence of Galtonian thought even on the future of Darwinian theory. Conclusion Galton’s theories have been accused of having a racial, class and gender bias as these theories attributed social backwardness to genetic qualities (Marks, 650). The Nazi regime of Hitler drew from Eugenics, “the idea of sterilizing and exterminating undesirables,” the Jews, who they thought were intellectually and hereditarily an undesirable element in the society (Marks, 651). Gilham has quoted Paul Grey observing that the Eugenics had “imbibed their Darwin and decided that the process of natural selection would improve if it were guided by human intelligence. They did not know they were shaping a rationale for atrocities” (84). Though Galton of course had racial, class and male prejudices, the misuse of Eugenics cannot be credited to this talented scientist. The methods and thought processes involved in Eugenics minus the ideological underpinnings of such research, hold a relevance even today. Works Cited Cowan, Ruth Schwartz, “Francis Galton’s Statistical Ideas: The Influence of Eugenics”, The History of Science Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Vol.63, No.4, December 1972, pp.509-528. Cullen, David O’Donald, “Nature versus Nurture: Eugenics”, Choice, Vol.43, No.3, Nov.2005, pp.405. Fancher, Raymond E., “Scientific Cousins: The Relationship Between Charles Darwin and Francis Galton”, American Psychologist, Vol.64, No.2, Feb-March 2009, pp.84-92. Farrall, Lyndsay, “The History of Eugenics: A Bibliographical Review”, Annals of Science, Vol.36, No.2, 1979, pp.111-123. Galton, Francis, “Hereditary Talent and Character”, Macmillan’s Magazine, June and August 1865, 12: 157-166, 318-327. Gilham, Nicholas W., “Sir Francis Galton and the Birth of Eugenics”, Annual Review of Genetics, Vol.35, 2001, pp.83-101. Jenson, Arthur R., “Galton’s Legacy to Research on intelligence”, Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol.34, 2002, pp.145-172. Marks, Jonathan, “Historiography of Eugenics”, The American Journal of Human Genetics, Vol.52, 1993, pp. 650-652. Vogel, Friedrich and Motulsky, Arno G., “Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches”, New York: Springer, 1997. Waller, John C., “Becoming a Darwinian: The Micro-politics of Sir Francis Galton’s Scientific Career 1859-65”, Annals of Science, Vol.61, No.2, 2004, pp.141-163. Read More