Simple Liars, Damned Liars, Davenport the Expert, and Scientific Critics of Eugenics

Abstract

Eugenics, a term coined by Francis Galton in 1883, means “wellborn.” As Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution of species by natural selection gained currency in scientific and social circles, and as late nineteenth century scientific discoveries diffused into societies, a strong impulse arose to make human reproduction into a science of sorts. Progressives in the early twentieth century sought to apply scientific discoveries to most aspects of human life, and their quest for perfection motivated the meddling of experts in individual reproductive choices to promote the common good. Eugenic policies categorized individuals into those fit to reproduce, or not. As advances in antiseptic surgery and surgical technique made sterilization of males and females safer and more readily available, Progressives saw this as a tool to eradicate hereditary diseases. It was applied disproportionately to those less powerful people in society judged as unfit. However, scientists also criticized eugenics, and despite mythology to the contrary, eugenics was based neither on pseudoscience nor faulty scientific consensus. Rather, eugenics advocates (“damned liars”) teamed with “experts” to dismiss valid scientific criticism. The “expert” in the Progressive Era had outsized influence, emitting an aura of science but acting far beyond the epistemic bounds of the scientific method. This thesis tested and verified the hypothesis that an expert (Charles Davenport) and a rigorous scientist (Thomas Hunt Morgan) understood science in substantially the same way. Janus-faced Davenport was variably a sophisticated scientist or a scientistic advocate in different contexts, depending on his personal and political interests.