You can't keep a bad idea down: Dark history, death, and potential rebirth of eugenics

Abstract

“Be careful what you wish for”: This adage guides both how this project came to life, and how the topic covered in this review continues to unfold. What began as talks between two friends on shared interests in military history led to a 4‐year discussion about how our science curriculum does little to introduce our students to societal and ethical impacts of the science they are taught. What emerged was a curricular idea centered on how “good intentions” of some were developed and twisted by others to result in disastrous consequences of state‐sanctioned eugenics. In this article, we take the reader (as we did our students) through the long and soiled history of eugenic thought, from its genesis to the present. Though our focus is on European and American eugenics, we will show how the interfaces and interactions between science and society have evolved over time but have remained ever constant. Four critical 'case studies' will also be employed here for deep, thoughtful exploration on a particular eugenic issue. The goal of the review, as it is with our course, is not to paint humanity with a single evil brush. Instead, our ambition is to introduce our students/readers to the potential for harm through the misapplication and misappropriation of science and scientific technology, and to provide them with the tools to ask the appropriate questions of their scientists, physicians, and politicians.

Arthur Jensen, evolutionary biology, and racism.

“…Despite the public belief that eugenics disappeared with the defeat of the Third Reich, scholars have shown that eugenic thought mutated into new forms. Postwar eugenic ideas were seldom expressed in term of coercive governmental action and eugenic advocates often framed their ideas in terms of voluntary measures that would prevent genetic deterioration of future generations (Duster, 2003;Ladd-Taylor, 2001;Largent, 2008;Liscum & Garcia, 2022;Mazumdar, 2002;Ramsden, 2009). Jensen's eugenic ideas reflected this kinder, gentler eugenics.…”

Artificial intelligence and clinical anatomical education: Promises and perils

“…As such, there is a danger that overly prescriptive AI diagnostics may further hinder students' uncertainty tolerance, giving them a flattened sense of the ambiguities and uncertainties intrinsic in human anatomy. Anatomical education has progressed over the past 20 years to better reflect the clinical relevance of human anatomical variation (Willan & Humpherson, 1999; Wheble & Channon, 2021; Cullinane & Barry, 2022), and is now calling into question historical and contemporary anatomical representations that fail to consider differences based on race, skin tone, sex, gender, body type, and age (Liscum & Garcia, 2022; Easterling & Byram, 2022; Finn et al, 2022; Smith, 2022). Artificial intelligence‐infused anatomical education does not currently support this diversity of the human form robustly.…”

Racism, structural racism, and the American Association for Anatomy: Initial report from a task force

“…Racism is perpetuated through both interpersonal and institutional practices” (Race‐website, 2022). Racial categorization in European contexts became prominent during the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) starting with Carolus Linnaeus (Hudson, 1996; Liscum & Garcia, 2022; Figure 1b). He inscribed upon the natural world the notions Europeans held at the time, launching the system that led to the “biologicalization” of race.…”