The eugenics nightmare

The eugenics movement of the early 20th century ­combined science and public policy in a quest to create a better human race, but it quickly fell out of favor after the racially motivated ­atrocities of the Second World War. In Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics (W.W. Norton & Co. 2022), Adam Rutherford, a British geneticist, chronicles the development of the eugenics movement and exposes how his own discipline of genetics is indebted to it.

The first half of the book investigates the history of eugenics. Rutherford is an atheist evolutionist, but he doesn’t shy away from examining the Darwinian roots of this wicked movement. Darwin’s supposition that some members of a species are fit and others less so directly inspired Britain’s intellectual class looking to “improve” the quality of humanity. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, coined the word eugenics—adding the Greek prefix eu, “good,” to genos, “offspring.”

Galton developed statistical and genetic models to understand how offspring inherit traits. It’s a bit awkward that the father of eugenics also spawned the field of genetics. Early eugenicists lobbied governments to enact policies to protect the gene pool from the poor and ignorant who ­supposedly threatened to wreck the species with high birthrates. 

Britain never enacted eugenic ­policies—kudos to Rutherford for acknowledging Christians blocked these immoral plans—but America and Germany did pass eugenics laws with deadly consequences. In America, state and local governments forcibly sterilized thousands of men and women because of poverty or low IQ. Euthanasia, beginning with children, became another tool of the eugenicists, and eventually the Nazis would kill millions in the name of “racial hygiene.” After the horrors of the Holocaust, public and scientific opinion quickly soured on the movement.

In the second half of Control, Rutherford assesses the current state of genetics and discusses whether the eugenic dreams of Galton could have been realized with our current knowledge and technology. He’s dubious, explaining genetics is more complicated than scientists imagined a hundred years ago—impossibly so.

In the early days, geneticists thought they could find the gene that controls this or that trait, but traits controlled by single genes are rare. Instead, vast combinations of genes make up people’s genetic identities. And while our genes influence us, they’re not determinative. Geneticists have discovered “nurture” plays just as important a role as “nature” in forming who we are.

Rutherford doubts scientists could enhance the population through gene editing and embryo selection. Geneticists are mapping constellations of genes associated with traits, but association doesn’t entail causation. Rutherford warns that if gene editing pushed a desirable trait in one direction—say higher IQ—there’s no knowing how other traits would be affected—for example, higher likelihood of mental illness.

Rutherford assumes he’s writing for a left-leaning audience, which makes his honesty about the progressive roots of eugenics all the more commendable. He also writes with self-awareness, warning those left-leaning readers against smug feelings of moral superiority: “Our descendants will condemn us for what we believed, or for what we fought for or against, or for the things we remained silent about.”

Despite his insights, Rutherford’s Darwinian worldview doesn’t help with the deeper questions his book raises. Throughout, he talks about genetic “code” or says our genes interact in a “choreographed” dance. How do these words make sense without a divine coder or choreographer? But perhaps even more telling is his insistence that eugenics is “wicked,” “reprehensible,” and “evil.” Science can’t teach us about the morality of scientific research. He sees the truth of human dignity, but I wonder if he asks himself from whence that dignity derives.