>>> Posting number 1869, dated 7 Mar 1997 12:48:30 Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 12:48:30 -0500 Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Discussion of Fraud in Science From: "Donald E. Simanek" Subject: Re: History of Science In-Reply-To: <331FCD6E@SmtpOut.em.cdc.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Those interested in historical myths in science might want to take my "Science History Quiz" on my web page. While the myths I cover in that document aren't terribly profound, they do keep popping up in textbooks. Also, I'm looking for critical feedback on this document from folks who know more about it than I do. -- Donald ..................................................................... Dr. Donald E. Simanek Office: 717-893-2079 Prof. of Physics Internet: dsimanek@REDACTED.lhup.edu Lock Haven University, Lock Haven, PA. 17745 CIS: 73147,2166 Home page: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek FAX: 717-893-2047 ..................................................................... [. . .] >>> Posting number 2523, dated 30 Aug 1997 22:47:25 Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 22:47:25 +0200 Reply-To: Discussion of Fraud in Science Sender: Discussion of Fraud in Science From: Per Dalen Subject: Re: Swedish (& other) Eugenics Comments: cc: JACOBSJW@REDACTED.EMI.COM, iig@REDACTED.pcmail.virginia.edu, hnasrall@REDACTED.acs.ohio-state.edu, spjupcs@REDACTED.bpmf.ac.uk, rnp5@psu.REDACTED, pal8g@REDACTED.med.virginia.edu, paul.weindling@REDACTED.ox.ac.uk, mlyons@REDACTED.bu.edu In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 14:42 29-8-97 -0400, John W Jacobson wrote (in part): >About 50% of instances of mental retardation, including some >instances within the severe or profound range of impact do not >have identified etiologies, genetic or otherwise; generally it is >presumed that the overwhelming majority of cases of severe or >profound MR that are unaccounted for do have biological >etiologies of some form, but they are not yet known. It is not >clear that there will be clear markers for unaccounted for cases >of milder, but still lifelong and consequential, disability. >But, as long as the majority of children who grow up disabled are >born to mothers with intelligence in the normal range and who >have no clear family history of disability, eugenic practices >that are gauged to identification of selected biological markers >seem to be just so much sociopolitical tinkering to little avail. The eugenic movement arose slightly before the era of modern (Mendelian) genetics, but it soon adopted genetical ideas. In many countries the demand for action was such that the lack of precise knowledge could not prevent the foregone conclusion that sterilization would eradicate many ills, such as schizophrenia and mental retardation. The atmosphere must have been conducive to stretching the evidence, or even outright fraud. In the German law of 1933 it was simply assumed that all cases of *congenital* mental retardation were also of genetic origin, with very few and unimportant exceptions. In the official law commentary (1936 edition) Ernst Rudin wrote some phrases about this which sound quite modern if transposed to the field of schizophrenia genetics: "The mode of inheritance of hereditary congenital mental retardation has not yet been elucidated in every detail; much of the evidence points to recessivity." This was simply a convenient lie, but of course Rudin may have believed it himself. He was so enthusiastic about sterilization, and he was the world's greatest expert on psychiatric genetics. He set an important scientific precedent, however. The fraudulent hint that the mode of inheritance of schizophrenia was not quite, but perhaps almost known to the experts has been endlessly repeated in textbooks and review articles for 60+ years without the slightest basis in fact. In recent years this has become less credible, but still the idea that schizophrenia may be as heterogeneous as mental retardation is (now) known to be is not in favour among psychiatric geneticists. I have looked up the Swedish sterilization law of 1941, which was in force far too many years after WWII. There were three indications for sterilization, firstly eugenics, secondly a social indication, and thirdly medical reasons why *a woman's* health would be seriously endangered by pregnancy. In all three categories sterilization was voluntary in principle, provided that the patient was legally competent. The commentary stressed the eugenic importance of sterilization in cases of mental retardation, but the social indication took care of most of the same cases and several more by covering social incompetence as a future parent in a variety of conditions. Dr. Paul Lombardo sent me the following information yesterday: >concerning the recent "news" of sterilizations in Sweden, a >recent book documents a great deal of Scandinavian history of >eugenics: > >Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in >Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland, edited by Gunnar Broberg >and Nils Roll-Hansen (Michigan State University Press, 1996). Per Per Dalen