Week6

In regards to the Homo Sapiens 1900 and the lectures on Eugenics.

How did those who believed in eugenics explain the members of royal families and religious families who were born with birth defects or mental disabilities?

My question for this week from Diane Paul’s Controlling human heredity. I saw a quote from a pamphlet sent from the American Eugenics Society called “ A Eugenics Catechism” where gave various costs of segregation up to 2 million dollars for the descendants of the people. It also compares that costs to sterilization which is estimated at $150. How accurate were these numbers as I cannot shake the feeling that they were exaggerated.

In the reading (on page 93) I found Wallace's quote on eugenics being a "scientific priestcraft" to be interesting, and rather against the times. How well supported was that idea during that time?

( I feel like we may have discussed something similar to this in case, if that is the case, my bad, ignore this question.)

My question is related to Mendel's Dwarf, for while I was reading I was curious as to whether or not we ever get more of a sense as to how Lambert sees himself fitting in with the rest of society? It is clear ho other people view him and what they think of him and his dwarfism, but there are times when he does not show much of a reaction to how he is treated so I am not sure as to how certain things affect him. I am assuming he doesn't enjoy being treated the way he is just because of his height but I am just curious as to whether or not we will get to see more of his view on it.

In Nazi Germany, biologists and geneticists threw their support, through party membership and other means, enthusiastically behind the regime. Much of this can be attributed to the fact that National Socialism, unlike any previous regime, held research into human heredity in high regard-believing it would validate their own claims of clearly defined racial hierarchy. Also, the German government lavished biologists and geneticists with grants, resources and career advancement opportunities. It can be quite difficult to bite the hand that feeds, which might explain why the German scientific community continued to not merely pay lip service to but widely endorse and pursue eugenics through research.

To what degree are modern geneticists, biologists and related fields does money talk, which clouds and can jeopardize objective judgment?

In the reading in Mendel’s Dwarf on pages 94-98 Mendel seems to have a special lady friend. Is this part of the fiction or did he really have someone he was close to?

My question this week has been inspired by the sterilization laws that are read about in Controlling Human Heredity. The sterilization laws of the early 20th century remind me of the current battle of pro-life vs. pro-choice. But one main difference I see is that pro-life and pro-choice, make it so you either are against it, or for the use of it, but there is never the option that will force you to use it. But with the sterilization laws one side of the battle endorsed forcing it upon the feeble-minded, insane, criminals, etc. To me it seems kind of against freedom to force that. So is it just a cultural time difference that made this okay back then, or did people really loose sight of morality during the eugenics movement?

In Controlling Human Heredity, Diane Paul discusses the issue of race-crossing and hybridization in the 1920s-1930s and points out that many eugenicists had very little evidence that the practice produced disharmonies. Although many benefits in terms of combined human strengths could result from crosses of blacks and whites, the idea was ultimately ignored because of the expected social rejection. People wanted to preserve a "superior race" and feared that "black-white mating would disturb families, schools, churches, and other social institutions" (Paul, 113).

Why was this idea of race-crossing so easily shut down? Would it have been plausible to cross races and arrange for "negro-white" hybrids to be produced? It seems like there would be some profound benefits toward improving population quality and toward reducing distinct racial prejudices.

Barbara McClintock was certainly hard working and it surprises me to see that she was having a hard time finding work even after all she had done by 1935.

"Despite the critical acclaim she received for her research, McClintock was frustrated at her long-term job prospects. As she wrote in April 1935, "No sign of a job has turned up for me as yet. I can't say that it makes me feel very peppy to be still in the unemployed list although I am getting a decent salary just now. The uncertainty gets under my skin a bit and hinders my spirits. My work has suffered in consequence without the necessary stimulus.""

Pasted from 

What were some of the factors at the time preventing her from getting work? I know it was more difficult as a woman to be recognized but as the article says she had already been noted as a leader in her field. During this period were there lots of jobs in genetics research for scientists?

I am not sure why Simon Mawer feels that dwarfism is such a genetic malfunction. Does he really feel that he is so cursed? How does he feel in comparison to those who have birth defects that make them handicapped to walking or other functions? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA&feature=player_embedded#t=2s

Last Thursday’s class on the Holocaust left me with a few questions. First, why was one proposal to “the Jewish question” Madagascar? Was it just because Madagascar was the most remote country they could think of? And what was the approximate suicide rate in concentration camps? Including people who probably got themselves killed on purpose.

It is evident that there have been certain societies which have strived to be the perfect and most elite. This further being upheld by the principles of Eugenics that were maintained in the early 20th century. Countries like Sweden who had experimented with Eugenics for what appears to be almost one generation must have affected their gene pool. What if any "defects" in the DNA did it decrease or this do more harm to the people of Sweden?

Why did sterilization take place in Indiana and Virginia long after the 1930's and 1940's even though eugenics was on the decline? For what reasons were people sterilized after Eugenics became unpopular? === my question this week is, in one of your lectures you mentioned that doctors would wait till a certain age to sterilize someone with an undesirable trait which they were born with. what if the child was known to have these undesired traits from birth would the doctor just do it right then and would he still wait for the age that was set by law? or were there exceptions to the laws of sterilization?

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/list2.pl http://www.commondreams.org/views/072100-106.htm

My question is about the events that happened at Hadamar, the hospital in Germany. Why did the eugenics and horrors that happened there begin with children. Is it just in my mind that it seems odd that they began on children. Is it a difference in time periods that causes me to feel like doing this to children is worse than adults, or would it have been seen this way back then too. I guess what i am getting at is that whenever violence is committed onto children it seems that much worse, and it therefore seems rather odd that this is where German genetics began, rather than built to.

On page 63 of Controlling Human Heredity, it talks about women first going to college. How come people who went to college still were considered to be feebleminded? Even those attending elite colleges.

If people who were 'higher up' supported eugenics, wouldn't supporting something that wants to rid the feebleminded hurt their political career? Especially since the growth of feeblemindedness is growing?

The eugenics movement came about dut to the alarming number of "feeble minded" individuals and they're detriment on the future generations of the human race. I couldn't help but relate this to a current genetic disease that is growing at an alarming rate from generation to generation, obesity. If this were the 1920's and the obesity epidemic was sweeping the nation as it does now, and probably at a much higher rate due to the lack of programs dedicated to bringing its severity to awareness, would it be plausible to say that there would be sterilizations done on morbidly obese people? or even just the average overweight person?

My question is about McClintock and her research on the "controlling elements." When she first published her results, other scientists never accepted this concept until many years later. This reminds me of how Mendel's work wasn't accepted until decades later. What took the scientific community so long to acknowledge her work? Was the data that she presented not convincing enough, or did other scientists just refuse to believe in idea that redefines the way people think about genetics? Was her work limited by the technology she had at the time?

I was wondering about whether or not Mary McClintock was recognized a lot for the work that she did on Zea Mays and if she worked with any other significant people at the time that helped her to gain this recognition? She seemed like she was very devoted to her work which must have made women look much more capable at that time, so was she also maybe ever considered extraordinary for learning so much in a field that was usually predominately men? === In The Century of the Gene, Evelyn Fox Keller focuses on the discovery of DNA structure as a turning point in molecular biology, but while doing so only mentions Watson and Crick as those behind the triumph. As she writes, "Watson and Crick's achievement stands unrivaled in the annals of twentieth- century biology, and it is worth pausing for a moment to register the extraordinary sense of satisfaction that accompanied their findings" (Keller, 24).

She doesn't say a single word about Rosalind Franklin in this section, which surprised me based on the sexist controversy that surrounded Franklin's snub of credit in DNA structure discovery. Why does Keller overlook Franklin's role in the momentous achievement?

As we delved into this biological aspect of genetics, a question I've certainly pondered before arises. Where is the link between the abstract "gene" or DNA strand and the formation of my nose? Our bodies contain a vast variety of different cell types, though they all have the same genetic code, no? Who has been able to explain the roll that genetics plays in the biological processes that relate to the formation and maintenance of the human body? Or any other organism, for that matter?

Through genetic counseling, abortion, gene therapies, screening during pregnancy and other means, many modern eugenicists (and receptive geneticists) hold out hope that individual autonomy will bring about what social/political coercion could not-the eradication of many heritable defects from the human gene pool. After all, no rational person would allow their child to be born a physically or mentally disabled, or deny the opportunity for them to be more intelligent, physically fit or aesthetically pleasing.

However, there are many deaf individuals who prefer to have deaf children- a "normal" child is perceived to be one who will eventually leave the deaf community, parents included.

The LGBT community also finds a bind in this- the "gay gene(s)," if found, would simultaneously validate that their orientation was not a choice as well as grant bigots the ability to not bear children with the gene(s).

Are there any other "disabled" or "disadvantaged" groups that oppose the potential eradication of their condition through modern genetics?

After getting further in Fox's The Century of the Gene it has become very apparent that so much knowledge of the hereditary basis for life has been discovered since the time of the eugenics movement. Would the eugenics movement have been different if the volume of knowledge about "genes" been different? Would the eugenics movement have even happened if the discoveries of the 1960s had been a few decades earlier? === While reading The Century of the Gene, it seems like every few pages a new discovery, complication, or opposing theory is introduced as the study of genes progresses that completely changes what was known. I understand that the research done on DNA and genes and expression is extremely thorough and sophisticated, but knowing that in the past ideas considered fact can be flipped rather easily, how can we really ever be sure that what we know to be true actually is true? How can we undertake practices like gene therapy with confidence knowing how easy it is to misunderstand a concept? http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/genetherapy/gtchallenges/