eugenics and experiments

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Nazi Physicians as Leaders in Eugenics and “Euthanasia”: Lessons for Today

Michael a grodin , md, erin l miller , ba, johnathan i kelly , ma.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Correspondence should be sent to Michael A. Grodin, MD, Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany St, Talbot Rm 358W, Boston, MA 02118 (e-mail: [email protected] ). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link.

CONTRIBUTORS

All authors contributed research, conceptualization, writing, and review.

Peer Reviewed

Corresponding author.

Accepted 2017 Sep 4; Issue date 2018 Jan.

This article, in commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg, reflects on the Nazi eugenics and “euthanasia” programs and their relevance for today. The Nazi doctors used eugenic ideals to justify sterilizations, child and adult “euthanasia,” and, ultimately, genocide.

Contemporary euthanasia has experienced a progression from voluntary to nonvoluntary and from passive to active killing. Modern eugenics has included both positive and negative selective activities.

The 70th anniversary of the Doctors’ Trial at Nuremberg provides an important opportunity to reflect on the implications of the Nazi eugenics and “euthanasia” programs for contemporary health law, bioethics, and human rights. In this article, we will examine the role that health practitioners played in the promotion and implementation of State-sponsored eugenics and “euthanasia” in Nazi Germany, followed by an exploration of contemporary parallels and debates in modern bioethics. 1

MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH IN NAZI GENOCIDE

The involvement of health practitioners in conceptualizing, initiating, and implementing Nazi mass murder remains an unparalleled case of medicine and public health’s participation in genocide. 2 By January 1933, more than half of the German medical profession had joined the Nazi Party and many participated in the murder of Jews, Sinti, and Roma; the disabled; the mentally ill; and other “unfit” persons under the guise of improving public health and Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene, the German version of eugenics). 3,4

Doctors in Germany became tightly integrated into the Nazi Party and supportive of its ideals. During the Weimar period, a large number of German doctors were unemployed or under-employed and witnessed a decline in their honor and prestige. The Nazi Party seemed like an organization that could reestablish physicians with the power and status they had lost. In 1929, physicians within Germany formed Nationalsozialistischer Deutscher Ärtzebund (The National Socialist German Physicians’ League) and unified the goals of physicians and the State. Physicians joined the Nazi Party both earlier and in larger numbers than any other group of professionals. As the historian Michael Kater writes, “Physicians became Nazified more thoroughly and much sooner than any other profession, and as Nazis they did more in service of the nefarious regime than any of their extraprofessional peers.” 3 (p4–5) By 1942, 38 000 physicians had joined the Nazi Party. In addition, the Nazi Physicians League began a process of removing Jewish physicians from the medical profession in March 1933, and in April 1933 a law was passed forbidding Jewish physician civil servants from practicing medicine at universities and hospitals throughout Germany. 3

Physicians further medicalized Nazi ideology by propagating the “science” that formed the foundation of a supposed truth. By portraying or certifying Jews and other peoples as racially, physically, or mentally unfit, physicians and government officials claimed to be cleansing Germany of the hereditarily imperfect and the weak. Nazi physicians rose to power and prestige as they used their skills to treat a supposed “racial” sickness that threatened to contaminate the Volkskörper (body of the German people). Cooperation between the Nazis and health practitioners added powerful justification and facilitated a State-run program of forced sterilization and murder that would have been much harder to accomplish without the willing participation of physicians. What began as purification would ultimately lead to genocide.

A series of recurrent themes arose in Nazi medicine as physicians undertook the mission of cleansing the State: the devaluation and dehumanization of segments of the community, medicalization of social and political problems, training of physicians to identify with the political goals of the government, fear of consequences of refusing to cooperate with civil authority, bureaucratization of the medical role, and the lack of concern for medical ethics and human rights. Nazi physicians viewed the State as their primary “patient”; some came to see quarantine (ghettoization), exclusion (emigration), then extermination of an entire people as “treatment” required for the State’s health. These physicians thought of themselves as “biological soldiers” instead of healers and caretakers. 5

EUGENICS AND RACIAL HYGIENE

Eugenics arose in the late 19th century as a science that dealt with the improvement of hereditary qualities. 2 Indeed, it was considered to be the leading, cutting-edge science of the time, as it was developed and practiced in several countries. This included the United States, where scientists and politicians worked together to research and implement ways of decreasing the number of people considered to be hereditarily weak (negative eugenics) and increasing the number of people thought to be hereditarily strong (positive eugenics).

In some ways, US eugenics programs served as models for the early eugenic initiatives promulgated in Germany. 6 Though the Nazi regime later made eugenics infamous through mass genocide, Britain and the United States also promoted policies to apply eugenics to social problems. The United States was at the forefront of the eugenics movement and initiated involuntary sterilization through laws often drafted by physicians. In 1907, Indiana became the first state to enact a law sanctioning the sterilization of “social misfits.” By 1926, 23 states had involuntary sterilization laws motivated primarily by eugenic ideas. 7 In 1927, Virginia’s law was found constitutional by the US Supreme Court in an opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, which used an analogy to the wartime draft. 8

Hitler’s enthusiasm for eugenic theory is well-known. He read Menschliche Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene (Principles of Human Heredity and Racial Hygiene) , the standard eugenics textbook during the Weimar years, and incorporated its ideas into Mein Kampf ( My Struggle ). 9 Though Mein Kampf is known for its promotion of eugenic ideas, it was preceded by a number of other formative texts and acts that developed the scope of eugenics to include eradicating diseases, disabilities, mental illnesses, and, finally, whole races.

Following World War I, German health practitioners openly discussed sterilization of the “unfit,” labeling the care of certain populations a financial burden on the State. 10 In Germany, State-sponsored sterilization began in the early 1930s, in the waning days of the Weimar Republic, after legislation was approved to encourage, but not require, the sterilization of patients deemed “unfit.” 11 Compulsory sterilization of the “unfit,” promoted for decades by prominent figures in German medicine, quickly became official policy soon after Hitler took power in 1933.

On July 14, 1933, the “Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring” required the compulsory sterilization of people with any of the following categories of disease: hereditary or congenital feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, bipolar disease, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington’s disease, chorea, hereditary blindness, hereditary deafness, malformation, and severe alcoholism. Patients were sent to eugenic health courts by their primary care doctors—further integrating the State and doctors into Germany’s eugenic mission. Decisions regarding sterilization were then made by “Hereditary Health Courts,” which consisted of a 3-person panel. Two panel members were physicians, one a health official likely tied to the Nazi Party and the other an expert in eugenics and hereditary diseases. 12 A district judge, usually a Nazi Party member, served as the third, coordinating member of the panel. German physicians forcibly sterilized 360 000 to 375 000 persons between 1933 and 1939. 10 (p533)

“Euthanasia,” which literally means a “good death,” is most commonly understood today as the bringing about of a merciful death for the terminally, irreversibly ill who are in pain and are suffering. Many patients also fear a loss of autonomy and wish not to be a burden. In a medical context, voluntary euthanasia is understood as the patient’s decision to end his or her life. But in the Third Reich, “euthanasia” was a program of State-sponsored medicalized mass murder. The Nazi “euthanasia” program was part of negative eugenics and Nazi racial hygiene’s claim that the only way to purify the Volk was by eliminating the “unfit.” To purify the Aryan German population, 200 000 to 300 000 people were murdered under the guise of “mercy killing,” including many of the mentally ill, disabled, asocials, and others deemed “unfit.” 13

Like the eugenics movement, advocacy for a large-scale program of State-sponsored euthanasia preceded the Third Reich. The prominent German jurist Karl Binding and German psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published a widely discussed book, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwertes Lebens (Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living ), in 1920. 14 In their text, written as a standard academic treatise, Binding and Hoche introduced the idea of lebensunwertes leben (“life unworthy of living”) and the legalization of the “mercy killing” of such populations. Drawing on eugenics and Social Darwinism, they argued that the burden on society by having to care for these individuals was too high and their human status too low, that the appropriate solution was the killing of these populations. Although not accepted by the majority of German physicians at the time, many of the procedures put forward by Binding and Hoche, including the 3-person panel deciding whether a patient should be killed, were adopted into the Nazi “euthanasia” program. 12 (p46–48)

A pivotal case of State-sponsored “euthanasia” occurred in fall 1938 and was granted personally by Hitler. 15 The father of an infant born blind, with a malformed brain, and with 1 arm and part of 1 leg missing, petitioned Hitler for the right to a “mercy death” for his son. Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician at the time, was sent to Leipzig by Hitler, where the baby was hospitalized, to consult with the doctors in charge. 15 At the Doctors’ Trial, Brandt described the orders Hitler gave him: “If the facts given by the father were correct, I was to inform the physicians in Hitler’s name that they could carry out euthanasia,” an order that Brandt followed. 12 (p51)

Brandt attempted to defend his decision at the Trial by testifying that the decision to kill the infant was hardly unique and in line with a procedure already followed in many German hospitals. “In maternity wards in some circumstances it was quite normal for the doctors themselves to perform euthanasia in such a case without anything further being said about it,” Brandt said at the Doctors’ Trial. 12 (p51) Upon returning to Berlin, Brandt was told by Hitler to proceed in similar fashion with other incurably ill children, an order that initiated the establishment of a formal structure for the “euthanasia” program. 12

A systematic program of “euthanasia” of “unfit” children and adults became official policy in Germany in 1939 when Hitler issued a decree commissioning doctors to perform “mercy killings” on those who were judged “incurably sick by medical examination.” 4 It was thought that the killing of the very young, newborns, and children up to age 3 or 4 years, would be considered the most “natural” or acceptable, and so the “euthanasia” program began with the killing of children. These first “mercy death[s]” involved “5,000 children killed by starvation, exposure in unheated wards, or the administration of cyanide, chemical warfare agents, or other poisons.” 4 (p187–188) The program was then expanded to include adults in mental hospitals in accordance with the decree issued by Hitler in October 1939 and backdated to September 1 to coincide with the beginning of the war. 12 (p62–63) The killing of adults was further employed as means of freeing space in hospitals for soldiers who suffered injuries in battle. 4 (p182) Hitler chose Brandt and Philipp Bouhler, chief of Hitler’s Chancellery, to lead and administer the program. Brandt assured the doctors operating the program that Hitler’s decree had the force of law and that they would not be prosecuted for their involvement. 16 The overall program for killing adults was given the codename Aktion T4 after Tiergartenstrasse 4, the address that housed the offices for the program in Berlin.

The doctors and administrators responsible for carrying out the program created a medicalized structure for each step of the killing process. Midwives and doctors were ordered to report all cases of children with serious hereditary diseases to the Reich Health Ministry. Similarly, doctors were required to report adult patients with certain diseases, patients deemed mentally ill, or patients who had been institutionalized for at least 5 years. 12 (p65–66) These reports resembled a standard medical questionnaire and led some physicians to believe that these reports were merely being used to further scientific research. Then, solely on the basis of these questionnaires, a panel of 3 “medical experts” was asked to judge whether the patient needed “treatment”—killing—or whether “postponement” or “observation” was appropriate. 12 (p52–53) The 3-member panel consisted of representatives of the T4 leadership, usually Brandt or Herbert Linden of the Interior Ministry, along with “outside consultants” such as Werner Catel or Hans Heinze, who were in charge of the child euthanasia operations at several hospitals. The whole process encouraged the 3 “experts” to issue a decision for killing. 12 (p55) The killing was usually ordered by the supervising doctor and often was done by repeated dosages of strong sedatives or morphine. False death certificates were then issued; the cause of death usually listed an ordinary disease. 12 (p55)

In the case of the larger killing operation of adults and children, “transport lists” were issued for those ordered to be transferred and murdered at one of the killing centers. 12(p70) Buses operated by Schutzstaffel (SS) officers dressed in white medical uniforms took patients to the killing centers. The destination of the buses was kept secret from the staffs of most hospitals and the patients themselves. Thus, from the reporting of hereditarily ill children and adults to the killing operation itself, the whole “euthanasia” program was a medical procedure administered by medical personnel. 12

Six sites were chosen as “euthanasia centers”—Brandenburg, Bernburg, Hartheim, Grafeneck, Sonnenstein, and Hadamar. The 6 sites were selected for their isolated locations; each had been mental hospitals, nursing homes, or jails before being transformed into killing centers. 12 (p71) At first, killing was done by lethal injection, and it was later performed through carbon monoxide in gas chambers disguised as showers. 12 (p71) After SS chemists had “perfected” the gassing operation, Brandt insisted that only doctors should carry out the gassings. 12 (p71–72) The bodies were disposed of in crematoria and the ashes sent in urns to the families along with falsified death certificates issued under a false name by the “Condolence Letter Department.” 12 (p70)

Hidden from the German public for years, knowledge about the true nature of the “euthanasia” program became increasingly common in Germany in 1940 and 1941. After widespread public opposition in Germany, including by churchmen, such as Münster Bishop Clemens von Galen, the program appeared to end when Hitler ordered its termination in August 1941. But the official ordering of the end of the “euthanasia” program occurred just as killing in concentration camps began, and a decentralized killing campaign continued in the hospitals. 17 Further murder of the “unfit” started in concentration camps in Germany after August 1941, where a new program titled 14F13 continued as a way of killing large numbers of inmates. 12 (p133) In total, between 200 000 and 300 000 people were killed under T4, 14F13, and other related “euthanasia” programs. 18

CONTEMPORARY EUTHANASIA

The atrocities justified and performed by the health practitioners serving the Nazi eugenics and “euthanasia” programs exemplify how small steps along a slippery slope can lead to crimes against humanity. The Nazi doctors gradually progressed from eugenic sterilization to child and adult “euthanasia” and ultimately to murder and genocide. Framed in such medical terms as “healing work” and “death assistance,” German health practitioners carried out the murder of thousands of the “unfit.” Seventy years after Nuremberg, it is important to reflect on lessons we can draw from the history of the Third Reich and to examine the role of contemporary eugenics and euthanasia in medicine today.

Contemporary euthanasia is legally sanctioned in several countries and states. Euthanasia began by facilitating a “good death” in dying patients who were terminal and irreversibly ill and in pain and suffering. Increasingly there has been a move away from these narrow inclusion criteria to euthanasia in the nonterminally ill, those with chronic disease, reversible treatable disease, and broad notions of psychological and existential suffering. In addition, there has been a progression from voluntary euthanasia to reliance on advance directives or previous statements in cases such as dementia and expanding assisted suicide to active killing. Finally, there has been a limited expansion to include euthanasia of infants and children as well as the incompetent.

Several US states have “Death with Dignity Statutes” allowing physician involvement in assisted suicide, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Washington, DC. Montana allows the end-of-life option through a state Supreme Court ruling. In June 2016, Canada by judicial opinion legalized medically assisted dying to relieve the suffering of terminally ill adults. This legislation specifies that assisted suicide is only permitted if there is voluntary, informed, and understanding consent from the patient. Increasing the slippery slope, however, Canada allows not only assisted suicide but also direct killing for those unable to kill themselves, thus permitting active euthanasia. Assisted suicide for the relief of suffering from a mental illness is permitted by statute in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. Using advance directives to provide prior consent for euthanasia is practiced in Belgium. The Netherlands allows an active ending of the life of an infant or child who is “classified” as having no hope of a good quality of life or no hope of improvement. (See the box on this page).

Statutes Allowing Physician Involvement in Assisted Suicide

Despite this contemporary progression of acts of euthanasia, the modern protocols are open and transparent, and publically reported and debated. Nonetheless, there is evidence of the slippery slope moving from competent suicide with physician assistance for adults to the incompetent, including euthanizing children and newborns. 19 Current practices raise the question of ensuring the establishment of proper limits, especially in protecting competent individuals through voluntary and informed consent and defining the role of the State in preventing abuses. 20,21

CONTEMPORARY EUGENICS

A focus primarily on positive eugenics differentiates modern eugenics as it exists today from American and Nazi eugenics of the early to mid-1900s. Contemporary examples of positive eugenics widely discussed among bioethicists include sex selection, genetic screening or testing, and the more recent controversy over “designer babies.” As research on genome editing has developed, some foresee a danger in modifying human DNA and the creation of “genetically modified humans.” A “designer baby” is an embryo whose genetic makeup has been selected or modified to eradicate a particular defect or to ensure a particular gene is present. 22 This can be accomplished by using gene editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas9, which can remove, add, or alter sections of DNA. All of these tools can be used to promote a healthier population, but also contain the potential for abuse. Thus, genetically modified human embryo work that goes beyond disease prevention has become a global concern. 23,24 Further modifying DNA of living human beings may have evolutionary impacts. 25 The use of embryo selection and genetics blurs the distinction between positive and negative eugenics. In addition, there is a blurring of public and private roles in eugenics. Rather than government mandate, social pressures arguably “encourage” private eugenic practices.

An example of contemporary negative eugenics is the case of the sterilization of female inmates in California prisons, performed without proper legal permission to do so or without appropriate informed consent procedures. 26 According to the California State Auditor, 144 female inmates were sterilized via bilateral tubal ligation during the years from 2005-2006 to 2012-2013. 26 At least 39 of those women, about a quarter of the female inmates sterilized, were sterilized following an improper “informed consent” process, making these 39 sterilizations illegal. 26 The audit also found that medical staff rarely requested approval from prison administrators to sterilize inmates, and when they did so, it was not always clarified that the requests were approved. 26 As a result of this investigation, a law was enacted prohibiting the use of sterilization as birth control for any inmate under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or in a county correctional facility in the state of California. 27 Within this law are specified criteria for when sterilization is permissible, as well as criteria for reporting that such a procedure has been performed. 27 The case highlights the continued responsibility to guard and raise concern for vulnerable people and their rights, especially those who are under guardianship of the State. Of particular concern is the role of doctors in carrying out the sterilizations. 28

LEGACY OF THE DOCTORS’ TRIAL

Although the proceedings of the Doctors’ Trial accomplished much in documenting the medical crimes performed under the Third Reich, the Trial did not go as far as it could have done in establishing the crucial role that medicine, in particular the frameworks of eugenics and euthanasia, played in Nazi ideology and mass murder. One of our aims in this review is thus to add to the understanding we now have of the degree of participation of physicians in medical crimes and mass murder during the Third Reich.

In his discussion of the Trial, the historian Michael Marrus has argued that the Trial “offered only the crudest of explanations for what had occurred and made no links with eugenic thought and the medical culture of Germany.” 29 (p118) As Marrus points out, because the Nuremberg trials focused on crimes committed against peoples of the nations who triumphed over Germany rather than on the German people, the trial gave little attention to the history of forced sterilization and the “euthanasia” program within Germany, programs that involved the widespread participation of physicians. 29 As Marrus writes,

The Trial’s focus on non-German victims, mainly in the concentration camps, entailed a downplaying of forcible sterilization and “medicalized killing”—the victimization of several hundred thousand people, mainly Germans, in which physicians were so heavily involved. . . . As a result, the trial suffered grievously as a chronicle of the medical crimes of the Third Reich . . . and deflected attention from the involvement of the medical profession as a whole in the Nazi enterprise. 29 (p115)

Most startling, as Marrus highlights, is the judges’ response to Brandt’s claim, discussed previously, that there was basis in precedent and humanitarian reasons for the “euthanasia” killings. 29 In their verdict the judges stated,

Whether or not a state may validly enact legislation which imposes euthanasia upon certain classes of its citizens is a question which does not enter into the issues. Assuming that it may do so, the Family of Nations is not obligated to give recognition to such legislation when it manifestly gives legality to plain murder and torture of defenseless and powerless human beings of other nations. 30 (p11 395)

These words ought to give us pause as we consider medical and legal defenses of cases of contemporary eugenics and euthanasia.

One of the most troubling unanswered questions about the Third Reich is how it was possible that physicians could have so willingly participated in mass murder. Were physicians true believers in Nazi racial ideology or instead were they willing and enthusiastic opportunists, who, like Germans in many other professions, joined the Nazi Party for the purposes of career advancement? In dealing with this problem, it could be argued that the medical profession itself includes elements of dehumanization and numbing, as means of coping with the suffering of patients. Alternatively, it could be asked whether the modern medical profession encourages group obedience to authority and the diffusion of responsibility. Physicians may be particularly vulnerable to these pressures, as they have a tendency to compartmentalize, justify, and rationalize problems as a way of coping with what the profession requires. Regardless of whether one finds any of these theories of the perpetrator convincing, there is no denying the vast role that physicians played in shaping and implementing the worst genocide the world has ever witnessed. 5

Seventy years after the Doctors’ Trial, we recognize that it is the duty of those in the medical profession to discuss the implications of the Trial and its lessons for today. We have offered this preliminary discussion of examples of contemporary parallels in pursuit of this goal, but much work remains. As we have made clear, although some aspects of the contemporary cases are troubling, we must be careful not to conflate instances of contemporary eugenics and euthanasia with Nazi eugenics and “euthanasia.” The misuse of the Nazi analogy is not only offensive and irresponsible, but it can also prevent a clear and important understanding of current cases we need to examine.

The 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial reminds us of the great atrocities that physicians can inflict when medical ethics is distorted by the ideology of a totalitarian State. It is our obligation to study how and why physicians dedicated to health and healing can turn to torture and murder in the “service” of their country. Reflection on the Doctors’ Trial reminds us that physicians have a special obligation to use their power to protect human rights and that medical ethics devoid of human rights is no more than hollow words.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Partial funding was provided by the Project on Ethics and the Holocaust at the Elie Wiesel Center for Jewish Studies at Boston University.

See also Annas and Grodin, p. 10 ; Wilensky, p. 12 ; Crosby and Benavidez, p. 36 ; Annas, p. 42 ; and Shuster, p. 47 .

• 1. Annas GJ, Grodin MA, editors. The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Grodin M. Nazi legacy and bioethics. In: Jennings B, editor. Bioethics. 4th ed. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale; 2012. pp. 2162–2166. [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Kater MH. Doctors Under Hitler. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Proctor RJ. Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Grodin MA. Mad, bad, or evil: how physician healers turn to torture and murder. In: Rubenfeld S, editor. Medicine After the Holocaust: From the Master Race to the Human Genome and Beyond. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. pp. 51–55. [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Whitman JQ. Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Kevles D. In the Name of Eugenics. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Buck v. Bell, 274 US 300 (1927).
• 9. Seidelman W. Academic medicine during the Nazi Period. In: Rubenfeld S, editor. Medicine After the Holocaust: From the Master Race to the Human Genome and Beyond. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. pp. 29–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. Weindling P. Health, Race, of German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism, 1870–1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Friedlander S. Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of Persecution. New York, NY: Harper Collins; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Lifton RJ. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Faulstich H. Die zahl der “euthanasie”-opfer [The number of euthanasia]. In: Frewer A, Eickoff C, eds. Die Historischen Hintergründe Medizinischer Ethik [The Historical Background of Medical Ethics]. Frankfurt, Germany: Campus-Verlag; 2000: 218–229.
• 14. Binding K, Hoche A. Permitting the destruction of unworthy life: its extent and form. Issues Law Med. 1992;8(2):231–265. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Benzenhoefer U. Der Fall Leipzig (Alias Fall “Kind Knauer”) und die Planung der NS-”Kindereuthanasie [The Leipzig Case (Alias Fall “Kindknauer”) and the Planning of the NS Child Euthanasia]. Münster, Germany: Klemm & Oelschläger; 2008.
• 16. Hohendorf G. The National Socialist patient murders between taboo and argument—is it possible to draw conclusions on the current debate on medical decisions concerning the end of life from the history of National Socialist “euthanasia?” In: Bialas W, Lothar F, eds. Nazi Ideology and Ethics. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2014.
• 17. Decentralized euthanasia. Available at: https://www.t4-denkmal.de/eng/Decentralised-euthanasia . Accessed June 8, 2017.
• 18. Euthanasia program. US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Available at: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005200 . Accessed June 6, 2017.
• 19. Lerner BH, Caplan AL. Euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands on a slippery slope? JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1640–1641. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4086. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. Rachels J, Jonsen AJ, Jecker NS. Active and passive euthanasia. In: Jecker NS, Jonsen AS, Pearlman RA, editors. Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2007. pp. 64–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Jotkowitz A, Glick S, Gesundheit BA. Case against justified non-voluntary active euthanasia (The Groningen Protocol) Am J Bioeth. 2008;8(11):23–26. doi: 10.1080/15265160802513085. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Lander ES. Brave new genome. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(1):5–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1506446. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Lanphier E, Urnov F, Haecker SE, Werner M, Smolenski J. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature. 2015;519(7544):410–411. doi: 10.1038/519410a. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M et al. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science. 2015;348(6230):36–38. doi: 10.1126/science.aab1028. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Doudna JA. A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Howle EM. Sterilization of Female Inmates. Sacramento, CA: State of California; 2014. pp. 1–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Cal Penal Code §3440 (2014; enacted).
• 28. Stern AM, Novak NL, Lira N, O’Connor K, Harlow S, Kardia S. California’s sterilization survivors: an estimate and call for redress. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(1):50–54. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303489. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 29. Marrus MR. The Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial in historical context. Bull Hist Med. 1999;73(1):106–123. doi: 10.1353/bhm.1999.0037. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949, 15 vols. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1949;2:198.
• View on publisher site
• PDF (613.7 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Scan to visit

• Introduction to Genomics
• Educational Resources
• Policy Issues in Genomics
• The Human Genome Project
• Funding Opportunities
• Funded Programs & Projects
• Division and Program Directors
• Scientific Program Analysts
• Contacts by Research Area
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Research Investigators
• Research Projects
• Clinical Research
• Data Tools & Resources
• Genomics & Medicine
• Family Health History
• For Patients & Families
• For Health Professionals
• Jobs at NHGRI
• Training at NHGRI
• Funding for Research Training
• Professional Development Programs
• NHGRI Culture
• Social Media
• Broadcast Media
• Image Gallery
• Press Resources
• Organization
• NHGRI Director
• Mission and Vision
• Policies and Guidance
• Institute Advisors
• Strategic Vision
• Leadership Initiatives
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Partner with NHGRI
• Staff Search

Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883 - Present)

Eugenics is an immoral and pseudoscientific theory that claims it is possible to perfect people and groups through genetics and the scientific laws of inheritance. Eugenicists used an incorrect and prejudiced understanding of the work of Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel to support the idea of “racial improvement.”

In their quest for a perfect society, eugenicists labelled many people as “unfit,” including ethnic and religious minorities, people with disabilities, the urban poor and LGBTQ individuals. Discussions of eugenics began in the late 19th century in England, then spread to other countries, including the United States. Most industrialized countries had organizations devoted to promoting eugenics by the end of World War I.

To better understand and protect against current and future discriminatory trends that misuse genetics and, through its association, genomics, this timeline highlights key moments in the development of eugenics, with a focus on the American eugenics movement.

Timeline — select a year for more details

Galton defines eugenics and gives birth to a movement

Francis Galton (pictured), Charles Darwin’s cousin, derived the term “eugenics” from the Greek word eugenes, meaning “good in birth” or “good in stock.” Galton first used the term in an 1883 book, “Inquiries into Human Fertility and Its Development.” Francis Galton (pictured), Charles Darwin’s cousin, derived the term “eugenics” from the Greek word eugenes, meaning “good in birth” or “good in stock.” Galton first used the term in an 1883 book, “Inquiries into Human Fertility and Its Development.”

Galton believed that eugenics could control human evolution and development. In his writings, he argued that abstract social traits, such as intelligence, were a result of heredity. In his book, he claimed that only “higher races” could be successful. Galton’s writings reflected prejudiced notions about race, class, gender and the overwhelming power of heredity.

Eugenics societies begin to form globally

The work of German biologist Alfred Ploetz, who coined the term “racial hygiene,” had a significant influence on Nazi race-based eugenics. In 1904, he founded the “Archiv für Rassen - und Gesellerschaftsbiology” or Archive for Racial and Social Biology, the first journal that focused primarily on racial hygiene and eugenics. The journal emphasized Nordic and Aryan racial superiority. The Society for Racial Hygiene, founded in 1905 in Germany, grew from this idea and became the earliest eugenics-focused organization in the world. Other similar organizations, like the Eugenics Education Society (now the Galton Institute) in Britain, were founded around this time. A paraphrased propaganda poster for the Nazi T-4 Euthanasia program (pictured) states, “This hereditary defective costs the people's community 60,000 Reichsmarks for life. Compatriot, that's your money, too!”

American Breeder’s Association establishes a Committee on Eugenics

The American Breeders Association was the first U.S.-based organization to study and promote genetics as well as plant and animal breeding research in the United States. At the request of Charles Davenport (pictured), a prominent biologist at Harvard University, the association created a committee to study eugenics.

Davenport is considered the most important eugenicist in the United States. He was an outspoken racist who believed that abstract traits like intelligence had strict hereditary links. Davenport used the association’s Committee on Eugenics to study his ideas of selective and restrictive breeding in humans. He also used the committee to promote future eugenics-minded organization efforts.

Indiana passes first sterilization law; other states follow

After previous efforts by Michigan and Pennsylvania failed, Indiana became the first U.S. state to pass a compulsory sterilization law. Indiana’s law mandated sterilization of those in state institutions who were deemed “idiots” or “imbeciles,” as well as certain classes of criminals. Under this law, women were sterilized for being deemed “feebleminded” or “promiscuous.” By the late 1800s, state officials were increasingly convinced that the social problems of crime and poverty were genetically inherited. In his 1881 article entitled “The Tribe of Ishmael: A Study in Social Degradation,” the influential Indiana preacher Oscar McCulloch wrote, “[N]ote the force of heredity. Each child reverts to the same life, reverts when taken out.”

The Indiana law was in effect from 1907 to 1974. During that time, approximately 2,500 people were forcibly sterilized. Soon after Indiana passed their law, other states adopted similar legislation. By the 1930s, over 30 states had sterilization laws. As a result, more than 60,000 persons were sterilized before these laws were overturned. (Graph depicting cumulative record of sterilizations in U.S. from 1907-35 is pictured.) Some U.S. sterilization laws remained in place until the 1980s.

Davenport establishes the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Through funding by philanthropist Mary Williamson Harriman and cereal magnate John Harvey Kellogg, Davenport started the Eugenics Record Office (pictured) at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York. The office was an extension of an experimental station that Davenport had previously started in 1904 at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory as part of the Carnegie Institute of Washington. The station’s initial purpose was to study Mendelian inheritance patterns and breeding in animals; however, the office focused specifically on humans and eugenics.

The Eugenics Record Office sent out questionnaires to families, created pedigree charts and trained fieldworkers who traveled across the country to compile data on traits like “feeblemindedness,” “criminality” and “alcoholism.” The office housed data on thousands of individuals and families. It also tried to educate the public about the values of eugenics. Its publication, Eugenical News , was distributed nationally and included information about eugenics research, fertility and other related issues. Some of the most important scientists of the day supported the Eugenics Record Office, including Nobel Laureate Thomas Hunt Morgan (though he later became an outspoken critic of eugenics) and Alexander Graham Bell.

First International Eugenics Congress takes place

The First International Eugenics Congress, organized by the British Eugenics Education Society, was held in London in 1912. Leonard Darwin (pictured in the top right), who was Charles Darwin’s son, presided over the event. Over 400 people from across Europe, Britain and the U.S. attended, including Winston Churchill, Arthur Balfour and Alexander Graham Bell. Several well-known geneticists also attended, including Reginald Punnett, who created the Punnett Square. Punnett said, “The one instance of eugenic importance that could be brought under immediate control is that of feeble-mindedness. Speaking generally, the available evidence suggests that it is a case of simple Mendelian inheritance.”

The American Breeders Association sponsored the exhibit by the U.S. eugenicists. Davenport, statistician Raymond Pearl and agricultural geneticist Bleecker Van Wagenen attended. Van Wagenen later presented a report to Congress summarizing recent laws implemented in various states to sterilize the “unfit.”

Eugenics organizations expand globally

The development of theories of biology and heredity, in addition to the cataclysmic events of World War I, caused a renewed interest in using eugenics to improve society. Eugenics organizations had been founded in the United States, Hungary, France, Italy, Argentina, Mexico and Czechoslovakia by the end of World War I. While each of these organizations were specific to their countries, they committed to the principles and practices of eugenics. The American eugenics movement focused on sterilizing the “feebleminded” while also promoting the racial ideology that white Anglo-Saxons were the “superior” race. A document presented by the Cuban delegation at the first Panamerican Conference on Eugenics and Homoculture is pictured.

Kansas holds first Fitter Family Contest

The Fitter Families for Future Firesides, otherwise known as the Fitter Family Contest, grew out of Better Baby Contests. Better Baby Contests started in 1908 and were held at state fairs nationwide. Judges would grade children ages 6 to 48 months on their physical appearance and their supposed mental capacity. The first Fitter Family Contest was held at the Kansas State Free Fair. (The winning family is pictured.) Mary T. Watts, a Parent-Teacher Association member, and Florence Brown Sherbon, a U.S. Children’s Bureau fieldworker, organized the event.

While the Better Baby Contests were not explicitly tied to eugenics, eugenics institutions such as the Eugenics Record Office sponsored the Fitter Family Contests. These contests were held across the country throughout the 1920s. Participating families were required to submit a record of family traits. Doctors at the events then performed physiological and psychological tests on family members to determine their overall “eugenical worth.” The winning families were almost always white, reflecting the ideals of the larger eugenics movement in the United States.

Second International Eugenics Congress is held in New York City

The American Museum of Natural History held the Second International Eugenics Congress in New York City in 1921. (The congress exhibit hall is pictured.) Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the museum, presided over the congress, and the Eugenics Record Office sponsored it. Attendees came from Europe, the United States and Central and South America. Immigration issues accounted for most of the discussions at the congress. American eugenicists, such as Eugenics Record Office Director Harry H. Laughlin, used their findings to support the argument that European immigrants were inferior and that their birthrates represented a threat to the Nordic races.

Genetics was also a prominent topic at the congress. The exhibits emphasized the role that Mendelian genetics played in the eugenics movement. One exhibit contained portraits of famous eugenicists, which included important figures in the history of genetics such as Gregor Mendel, Erich von Tshermak and Hugo De Vries. Another was entitled “Genetics: Principles of Heredity in Animals and Plants.” Davenport invited William Bateson, who founded and named the field of genetics, to the congress. Bateson declined, writing: “the real question is whether we ought not to keep genetics [and eugenics] separate.”

U.S. President Calvin Coolidge signs the Johnson-Reed Act

In the early 20th century, immigration was a key political issue in the United States. Most immigrants came from non-English-speaking countries, such as Italy and Poland. These new immigrants mostly settled in cities where people believed overcrowding strained the urban infrastructure. An illustration for article "An Alien Anti-Dumping Bill" in The Literary Digest from May 7, 1921, is pictured.

Eugenicists, including Laughlin, saw these new “non-Nordic” immigrants as undesirable compared to immigrants from northern Europe, and he spoke about the inherent criminality of non-Nordic immigrants before the U.S. Congress in 1921. His testimony was key in the passing of the Johnson-Reed immigration Act in 1924. The act placed a quota on the number of immigrants to the United States from Southern and Eastern Europe, and completely excluded Asian immigrants. This act allowed for more immigration from northern European countries.

The American Eugenics Society is established

The American Eugenics Society grew out of a committee formed at the Second International Eugenics Congress in New York. It was formally established in 1926 by several prominent American eugenicists, including Eugenics Record Office Director Laughlin; Madison Grant, author of the book The Passing of the Great Race, whom Adolf Hitler admired; and Irving Fisher, Yale University economist. The American Eugenics Society exhibit at the Sesquicentennial Exposition in Philadelphia is pictured.

The American Eugenics Society’s primary function was to educate people about the importance of eugenics. It sponsored events at local and state fairs, such as Fitter Family Contests, and exhibits that illustrated Mendel’s laws of inheritance and showed the economic costs of caring for “mentally ill” children. It distributed several publications, including Eugenics , Eugenical News and Eugenics Quarterly. At its height in the 1930s, the organization had more than 1,200 members, including notable names like Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Buck v. Bell County

In 1924, Virginia’s General Assembly passed the Eugenical Sterilization Act, a law designed around model legislation that Laughlin had created. The law allowed the commonwealth of Virginia to forcibly sterilize those deemed “intellectually disabled.” The same year, Albert Priddy, the superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, requested the authority to sterilize an 18-year-old patient, Carrie Buck (pictured with her mother). Her mother had a history of prostitution, and Buck had been raped by a relative and subsequently birthed a child. Buck was committed to the State Colony and deemed “feebleminded.”

The legal case to sterilize Buck made it to the Supreme Court, who decided in an 8-1 vote that it was in the commonwealth’s best interest to proceed with the sterilization. Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes wrote the majority opinion, saying, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Third International Congress of Eugenics is held

Fewer than 100 delegates attended the third (and final) International Eugenics Congress. (The congress exhibit hall is pictured.) By the 1930s, many prominent scientists were openly critical of the scientific merits of eugenics. Among them were some who had previously been supportive, including geneticist Thomas Hunt Morgan and statistician Raymond Pearl. These critics pointed out the eugenicists’ flawed experimental methods, their overly simplistic application of Mendelian genetics and their racist and classist biases. Geneticist Herbert Jennings criticized the beliefs that European immigrants were more prone to being criminals than other types of immigrants.

Some critics within the eugenics community also attended the congress. They argued that Davenport and Laughlin did not sufficiently account for the effects of economics and environment in their studies.

Eugenics Record Office closes

With the onset of World War II in 1939, eugenics continued to fall out of favor with both the public and the scientific community. Throughout the 1930s, the U.S. population learned how scientists and politicians in Nazi Germany advocated for and implemented eugenics policies, such as forced sterilization against Jews and persecuted minorities, and that such practices were inspired by policies in many U.S. states. As these horrific realities became more known, eugenics became increasingly unpopular in the United States. In 1935, the Carnegie Institute of Washington assembled a committee of scientists to study the validity of the eugenics research supported by the Eugenics Record Office (pictured). In 1939, Vannevar Bush, the president of the Carnegie Institution, cut funding to the Eugenics Record Office, which led to its closing in December of that year.

Eugenics in the post-war period

Eugenics adapted and changed after World War II. Most U.S. academics and scientists in the eugenics community distanced themselves from the eugenics movement in Germany. Many eugenicists became advocates of neo-Malthusianism, the belief that global population should be reduced to prevent mass starvation and societal collapse. Some of them went on to lead prominent population research organizations in the United States. For example, Robert Cook (pictured, former editor of the Journal of Heredity , board member of the American Eugenics Society and population consultant to the National Institutes of Health) was president of the Population Reference Bureau.

Some geneticists, including Curt Stern and Theodosius Dobzhansky, reformulated their defense of eugenics based on an improved knowledge of human genetics and an added emphasis on individual choice and autonomy. However, they still believed that people with “serious hereditary defects” should be placed in institutions and, in some cases, involuntarily sterilized if they resisted social pressure to not have children.

Oregon is the last state to repeal its sterilization law

Many states repealed their sterilization laws decades after World War II. Virginia repealed its Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1974. California, which sterilized more than 20,000 people, repealed its law in 1979. In 1983, Oregon became the last state to repeal its sterilization law. By that time, 2,648 people had been sterilized in the state. It took nearly 20 years after Oregon’s repeal for Virginia to formally apologize for the sterilization of Carrie Buck (pictured).

The Bell Curve and modern concerns about a resurgence of eugenics

Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray published The Bell Curve in 1994, which promoted historical eugenic arguments. These authors argued that genetics determined intelligence and social mobility in American society and that genetics caused African Americans and European Americans to have different IQ scores.

James Watson was the former director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, former director of the National Center for Human Genome Research (now the National Human Genome Research Institute or NHGRI) and key figure in the Human Genome Project. Repeatedly since 2000, Watson has made comments that publicly support the scientifically racist claims in The Bell Curve and other works. Watson’s opinions on these topics are counter to the NHGRI’s mission and values.

Recently, groundbreaking technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9, have raised concerns about using genome editing methods to make genetic enhancements. In response, some prominent geneticists have publicly requested to stop such enhancements.

Eugenics remains a constant issue in society and the scientific community, and the NHGRI is committed to monitoring its presence and confronting its inaccuracies. (The Nature cover announcing the completion of Human Genome Project is pictured.)

Additional Resources

Last updated: November 30, 2021

Home » POSTS » Eugenics in the United States: The Forgotten Movement

Eugenics in the United States: The Forgotten Movement

• May 20, 2021

By: Samantha Schexnayder

“Eugenics in the United States: The Forgotten Movement”

Eugenics as a concept has been around for ages and has continuously evolved in its execution over time. Thinkers such as Plato and Galton as well as leaders such as Hitler have all supported the use of science to improve the human race. Some of these uses are more prevalent than others, such as the programs implemented by Hitler in Nazi Germany. However, an often-overlooked section in the history of eugenics is the movement in the United States. The movement in the early part of the twentieth century exhibits an abuse of the prestige of science and its devastating impact on history. These reprehensible acts are no longer in practice in America, but the concept of eugenics continues, continuously evolving with the advancement of technology and science. This evolution leads to momentous questions that plague society about how eugenics should be handled in a modern world.   

Eugenics emerged as a discipline in the late 1800s, with Francis Galton at the forefront.  The concept of eugenics, however, has existed for far longer than that. The term eugenics comes from the Greek word eugenes, eu meaning “well” and genos meaning “born” (Garver). The Greek philosopher, Plato, was an adamant supporter of the idea that the government should control the process of human reproduction. He, like many others, drew from the idea of selective breeding in animals, saying that the same could and should be done for the human species. He even proposed that the selection should be performed using a fake lottery system. In doing this, the government would avoid offending individuals as they would be unaware of the principles for selection. The ever-growing dominance of monotheistic religions stifled the advance of eugenicist ideas like Plato’s. However, in the modern age, with the emergence of thinkers such as Charles Darwin and the rise of modern science as a challenge to traditional religious belief, the concept of Eugenics began to gain traction.

Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 (Whitney 107). He describes eugenics as “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn quality of a race; also, with those that develop them to the utmost advantage” (Galton).  Galton applied the theory of evolution, which was developed by his cousin, Charles Darwin, to advance his study. He used Darwin’s work, On the Origin of Species, to describe how human behavior was deterring the process of natural selection. The theory was used to push the idea that humans are no different than animals and that they too should follow the process of natural selection. Galton explained that because humans care for the sick and feeble, they are allowing them to procreate and pass down their negative attributes, thus, allowing for the deterioration of the human species. Galton supported the practice of positive eugenics, meaning the act of encouraging those with good traits to reproduce. It was not until later when positive eugenics did not produce adequate results that the practices of negative eugenics, like forced sterilization, took off.  Galton’s works never truly took off in Great Britain. However, it gained great popularity in the United States.

Eugenics “first flourished as a scientific endeavor in the United States and resulted in one of the largest eugenic movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries” (MacKellar 26). The first recorded eugenic experiment was at the Perfectionist Community of Oneida, New York; the leader, John H. Noyes, was influenced by Darwin’s Origin of the Species , as well as Galton’s early work on eugenics. He used this inspiration to create the experiments that resulted in what he termed as ‘stirpiculture’, the cultivation of high-quality human stock (MacKellar 26).  He held a multitude of these experiments which resulted in around fifty-eight children, known as ‘stirpicults’. Noyes was not the only Christian minister to implement eugenicist programs, many others began restricting the marriages between individuals with negative mental or physical traits. States soon began enacting marriage laws that prevented certain types of people from marrying, specifically those with mental disabilities; the laws later expanded to include minorities.  On a federal level, immigration laws were implemented for eugenicist purposes. In 1917, a government statute excluded “all idiots, imbeciles, feebleminded persons, epileptics, [and] insane persons” from immigration to the United States (qtd. in MacKellar 27). The first sterilization law was put into place in Indiana in 1907. The law gave institutions the right to sterilize criminals, idiots, rapists, and imbeciles that were housed in their facilities. Throughout the 1900s, forced sterilization laws were being implemented by states across the country; individuals considered “mentally deficient,” those who had some form of physical disability, poor people, promiscuous women, and minorities were being forcefully sterilized (Supreme). By 1927, twenty-four other states had implemented legislature similar to Indiana’s. California had the most prolific programs, “performing 4,636 sterilizations and castrations between 1907 and 1925, reaching a total of 9,930 by 1935” (qtd. in MacKellar 28).

The eugenics movement in the United States came to a climax in 1927 when a woman named Carrie Buck challenged the law in Virginia. Buck was told she would be sterilized for being “feeble-minded.” However, Buck fought back and brought the issue before the courts. The case made its way to the Supreme Court and resulted in the court ruling eight to one against Buck. The court ruled that the state does have the right to forcibly sterilize a person they deem unfit to procreate (Supreme).  Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. concluded the majority opinion, by asserting that it was Bucks’ duty to society to not produce any more feeble-minded individuals such as herself, stating, “three generations of imbeciles are enough” (BUCK).   This case was a huge victory for the eugenics movement in the United States and solidified its power.

American advocates of eugenics systematically advanced their ideas with the eugenic continuum. This continuum is followed by nearly every eugenics movement around the world. It consists of five steps in escalating severity: differentiation, alienation, segregation, sterilization, and elimination. The first step, differentiation, requires convincing one group that they are different from another in a significant way. This was enforced through education in the United States, using programs like the ERO, Eugenic Records Office, to study families and educate the public on how to create “family pedigrees” (Markfield 25). Contest and advertisements were also used to help distinguish those with good traits from those with negative ones.  The next step in the continuum is alienation. This step builds upon the first one by saying that the differences established are a problem that makes the individuals “incompatible with the dominant social order” (Markfield 25). Eugenicists believed that alienation was necessary to prevent those with undesirable traits from passing them down to future generations. But isolation was not enough, they believed the unfit should also be exposed as dangerous for the sake of humanity. In 1911, a list was created by a group of American eugenicists, which outlined 10 categories that should be alienated to prevent them from procreating. The list included the feebleminded, the pauper class, alcoholics, criminals, epileptics, the insane, the constitutionally weak class, those predisposed to specific diseases, the deformed, and those with defective organs such as the blind, deaf, and mute.

Following alienation in the continuum is segregation, which takes the continuum from the realm of eugenic theory to the realm of policy. This step was not hard to institute because many forms of segregation were already in place in society. Along with racial segregation, those deemed to be mentally ill were often housed in insane asylums, which kept them distant from normal society. However, this step was advanced further by a proposal in the early twentieth century that called for the internment of those deemed unfit during their fertile years. Another form of segregation was the immigration laws that were implemented during the early twentieth century as well as stringent marriage laws. These laws were used to maintain a racially pure Anglo-Saxon people in the United States, which became increasingly more difficult with westward expansion and the influx of immigration from southern and eastern Europe.

While segregation helped their objective, eugenicists realized that it was extremely costly to house the unfit. An alternative to this was sterilization; it was much cheaper and guaranteed that the inept could not procreate and pass down their unwanted genes. Sterilization was extremely popular among American eugenicists and doctors quickly began performing on patients. Soon, legislation began appearing at the state level to permit the sterilization of individuals and eventually thirty-two states legalized involuntary sterilization of certain populations.

Some eugenicists believed that sterilization was not enough to adequately protect humanity; they thought that elimination of the unfit was necessary to ensure that their negative attributes would not be passed on to future generations. While this may appear drastic, capital punishment was already a common practice at the time. Criminality, in the eyes of American eugenicists, was similar to blindness and was thought to be passed down from generation to generation. Thus, the execution of criminals and others deemed unfit was an appropriate way to stop the spread and with new innovations, the execution of large numbers of the unfit would be easier to accomplish. Inventions such as the “killing chamber,” which was originally designed to kill stray animals humanely, piqued the interest of prominent eugenicists at the time. However, this practice never gained the same level of traction in the United States as the previous steps in the continuum.

The movement in the United States was so prominent that it inspired the movements in countries around the world. One of the most notable individuals that looked to America for inspiration is Adolf Hitler. After his rise to power in Germany, he began implementing eugenic theory into law. His Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases was modeled after American eugenic theory and legislation. The Nazi government often referred to publications that reported the results of the sterilization policy in California as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were possible. American eugenic supporters were blown away by the success of Hitler’s programs and were jealous that their efforts could not reach the same level. Dr. J. DeJarnette, the superintendent of Virginia’s Western State Hospital, told a local newspaper that, “The Germans are beating us at our own game” (qtd. in Markfield 34). The Nazis developed a system for tracking racial characteristics of Germans that resembled the system the ERO had created to track specific traits in Americans. In following the continuum, the Nazis soon progressed from alienation and segregation to sterilization and elimination. It is often assumed that no one knew of the true atrocities committed by the Nazis, however, many Americans were in contact with high-ranking German officials and despite their knowledge of the acts, remained faithful in their belief in the theory of eugenics. In fact, many of the steps in the Nazi final solution were discussed as possibilities for future action by American eugenicists. Programs continued in America in the post-war period, going unopposed legally until the 1970s. In 1974, Relf v. Weinberger was brought before the Supreme Court. This time the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and stated that consent by the individual was required for sterilization to be legal. This initiated not an end to eugenics, but a transformation.

The major distinction between new eugenics and old eugenics is that new eugenics is an individual decision, as opposed to a collective one. No longer is the focus on the improvement of the human species, but instead on the improvement of the quality of life for the mother or child that is undergoing the procedure. In Vitro Fertilization was created in the 1970s and was largely disliked by the majority of society who deemed it unnatural and a form of eugenics. This disproval, however, was overcome due to the demand of infertile individuals who desperately needed it. This reflects the transformation of eugenics because it depicts how the focus is now on the mother’s wants as opposed to society’s. Abortion is another form of modern eugenics. This can be a means of preventing the life of a child with devastating diseases. After a screening to determine if the fetus shows any signs of having a life-compromising disease, the mother can choose to abort the child. This again depicts how the power in modern eugenics is placed in the hands of the woman and not society or the government.

 Along with abortions and In Vitro Fertilization, gene therapy is another example of eugenics today. Gene therapy involves infecting sufficient cells into the body with a gene-carrying virus to correct a faulty gene (Ridley 35). Doctors can recommend that a woman have a particular procedure done to ensure the best life for her and her child, however, the decision is ultimately in the mother’s hands. While many new medical procedures are in use to help prevent the spread of certain diseases, some groups are still using archaic methods of eugenics. For example, Ashkenazi Jews who carry the Tay-Sachs mutation, which is “an inherited metabolic disorder in which certain lipids accumulate in the brain, causing spasticity and death in childhood,” avoid marrying others who also carry the trait (Oxford).  They are checked for the disease through blood testing organized by the Committee for the Prevention of Jewish Genetic Diseases. While the method may be similar to those used in the early twentieth century, the power still lays in the hands of the individual as they are not forced to take any particular measures but instead choose to.

A major proponent of modern Eugenics is genetic engineering. Advancements in technology have allowed for the modification of genes in order to avoid certain traits and diseases. “Inexpensive, efficient gene-editing methods, such ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR-Cas9, allow molecular biologists to make changes in the DNA sequences of organisms by inducing genetic mutations in their cells” (Cerroni 3). These can be used to manipulate stem cells and stop genetic diseases from becoming active. As technology continues to advance, the ability to manipulate complex traits like appearance and intellect will soon be possibilities. This ability to manipulate genetics brings up an issue over what are acceptable practices.

 Due to the atrocities of the Nazi’s Final Solution, the majority of individuals are extremely wary of any attempts to change or improve the human species and are only convinced that such action is acceptable if it could prevent a life-altering disease. This leads to the necessity of a distinction between what is therapy, meaning the curing of diseases, and what is simply enhancement, meaning to improve desirable characteristics. This distinction, however, is not as clear as one might think. For example, a disability such as dyslexia could be considered both a disease to be cured, but also just a part of the person’s intellect that does not necessarily decrease their quality of life.  Along with the blurry lines that accompany genetic engineering, another issue that arises is the fear of its potential abuse.

Due to this fear, different groups have compiled a list of possible abuses that could result from genetic engineering. The list includes: “promoting a eugenic mentality, providing new means of social control, introducing social stigma, favoring the will of some over the freedom of others, promoting racialization, and eugenic deselection of non-pathological conditions,” (Cerroni 3). This list’s focus on social issues that would arise with the abuse of genetic engineering instead of medical issues shows that genetic engineering and eugenics as a whole is considered a societal matter as opposed to a personal one. Due to this, the government is often involved in matters pertaining to it. In the past, governments abused their power regarding eugenics, which often leads individuals to be wary of government involvement in current issues. However, government involvement is not an abstract idea, even in more modern times. The Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade in 1973, resulted in the government ruling in favor of a modern eugenicist practice of abortion. This brings up the question of how much should the government be involved in matters of modern eugenic practices.

Government intervention involving eugenicist practices in the past had suboptimal outcomes. If one looks to American, they can bear witness to the atrocities that resulted from nearly complete government control of practices like sterilization as thousands of citizens were sterilized because the state deemed them unfit to reproduce. However, no government regulation could potentially be just as harmful. Without regulation, doctors could potentially practice unsafe procedures or could, themselves, fall into similar situations as did doctors in the early part of the twentieth century who believed they had the power to decide who the procedures should be performed on. DJ Galton argues in his article, “Eugenics: some lessons from the past,” that “the major role for legislation may be more to curb the over-enthusiastic activities of companies and businesses that promote and sell such eugenic services to the general public” (Galton 135). This quote demonstrates the idea that government regulation is good in moderation but should not grow to a substantial amount.

Another issue that arises from the concept of modern eugenic programs is morality; is it morally correct to remove someone’s ability to reproduce or to change the life of a child because of their genetic makeup?  History has provided many examples to prove that the answer to the first part of that question is no. However, the second part remains unanswered.  When dealing with alterations that could prevent the fetus from having life-threatening illnesses, most people would argue that it is morally correct. On the other hand, when discussing the potential of changing things such as eye color, intellect, or athletic ability, the question gets more difficult to answer. Some argue that allowing “designer babies” will increase the gap between the rich and the poor because only the wealthy will be able to afford the procedure. This implies, however, that everyone will want to genetically alter their children, which will more than likely not be true. Just as In Vitro Fertilization was used only by those who needed it and not by mass numbers of the public, one can assume a similar pattern to appear with genetic engineering; those with the budget will contemplate the procedure but most individuals will not.

Personally, I agree that there should be some government regulation of modern eugenic practices, just as there is with any medical procedure. The government should merely be there to ensure that the practices are safe and that the medical staff is being completely transparent about what will occur to the individual that is involved. The issue of morality is far more complicated. I believe that if the procedures could save a child’s life or promise a better quality of life overall, then there should be no moral issue associated. The creation of “designer babies” on the other hand, is harder to argue because it is simply the parents wanting their child to appear a certain way; it does not necessarily benefit the child’s quality of life. Because of this, it could be left alone with no effect on the child. Therefore, it is a meaningless manipulation of life for no reason other than aesthetic purposes.

The eugenics movement in America is a largely unknown movement, but it has had a huge impact on the world and continues to impact society. From forced sterilization laws in a multitude of U.S. states to the atrocities committed by the Third Reich, the eugenics of the early twentieth century demonstrate the dangers of abusing the prestige and power of science. These practices have ended but eugenics continues. New advances in science have allowed for new practices, aimed at bettering future generations of the human species, to arise. This new form of eugenics affects not only the scientific realm but also society as a whole, which leads to many critical questions that need to be answered before the practices can be implemented. These questions encompass government involvement and issues of morality, removing the practice from the scientific realm into the world of society and politics.

Works Cited

“BUCK v. BELL, Superintendent of State Colony Epileptics and Feeble Minded,” Legal Information Institute, Accessed April 09, 2021, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/200.

Cerroni, Phil. “Genetic Modification and Adverse Societal Effects.” Ethics & Medics , vol. 43, no. 3, Mar. 2018, pp. 2–4. EBSCOhost , search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=128062801&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Galton , D. J. “Eugenics: Some Lessons from the Past.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (Reproductive Healthcare Limited) , vol. 10, Mar. 2005, pp. 133–136. EBSCOhost , doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62222-5.

Galton, Francis. “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 10, no. 1, 1904, pp. 1–25., doi:10.1086/211280.

Garver, K., and B. Garver. “Eugenics: Past, Present, and Future.” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 49, 1991, pp. 1109–1118.

Hodge, Jonathan, and Gregory Radick.  The Cambridge Companion to Darwin . Cambridge University Press, 2009.

MacKellar , Calum, and Christopher Bechtel, editors. “The History of Eugenics.” The Ethics of the New Eugenics , 1st ed., Berghahn Books, NEW YORK; OXFORD, 2014, pp. 15–34. JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt9qcw9j.7. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.

Markfield, Miriam H. “A More Perfect Union: Eugenics in America.” NAELA Journal , vol. 15, Spring 2019, pp. 17–37. EBSCOhost , search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=136834087&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Ridley , Matt. “The New Eugenics.” National Review , vol. 52, no. 14, July 2000, pp. 34–36. EBSCOhost , search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3356665&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

“The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70,000 Forced Sterilizations.” NPR, NPR, 7 Mar. 2016, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/07/469478098/the-supreme-court-ruling-that-led-to-70-000-forced-sterilizations#:~:text=In%201927%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme,deemed%20to%20be%20%22feebleminded.%22.

“Tay–Sachs Disease: Meaning of Tay–Sachs Disease by Lexico.”  Lexico Dictionaries | English , Lexico Dictionaries, www.lexico.com/definition/tay–sachs_disease.

Whitney, David N.  Maladies of Modernity: Scienctism and the Deformation of Political Order . St. Augustine’s Press, 2019.

Privacy Overview