The so-called "biometric-Mendelian controversy" has received much attention from science studies scholars. This paper focuses on one scientist involved in this debate, Arthur Dukinfield Darbishire, who performed a series of hybridization experiments with mice beginning in 1901. Previous historical work on Darbishire's experiments and his later attempt to reconcile Mendelian and biometric views describe Darbishire as eventually being "converted" to Mendelism. I provide a new analysis of this episode in the context of Darbishire's experimental results, his underlying epistemology, and his (...) influence on the broader debate surrounding the rediscovery and acceptance of Mendelism. I investigate various historiographical issues raised by this episode in order to reflect on the idea of "conversion" to a scientific theory. Darbishire was an influential figure who resisted strong forces compelling him to convert prematurely due to his requirements that the new theory account for particularly important anomalous facts and answer the most pressing questions in the field. (shrink)

The influence of personal opinions and biases on scientific conclusions is a threat to the advancement of knowledge. Expertise and experience does not render one immune to this temptation. In this work, one of the founding fathers of statistics, Karl Pearson, is used as an illustration of how even the most talented among us can produce misleading results when inferences are made without caution or reference to potential bias and other analysis limitations. A study performed by Pearson on British Jewish (...) schoolchildren is examined in light of ethical and professional statistical practice. The methodology used and inferences made by Pearson and his coauthor are sometimes questionable and offer insight into how Pearson’s support of eugenics and his own British nationalism could have potentially influenced his often careless and far-fetched inferences. A short background into Pearson’s work and beliefs is provided, along with an in-depth examination of the authors’ overall experimental design and statistical practices. In addition, portions of the study regarding intelligence and tuberculosis are discussed in more detail, along with historical reactions to their work. (shrink)

‘We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock … especially in the case of man’, the influential English scientist Francis Galton wrote in 1883. ‘The word eugenics sufficiently expresses the idea.’ During the ensuing half century, Gallon's new word and the underlying theories that he had already begun developing from the evolutionary concepts advanced by his cousin, Charles Darwin, spread throughout the Western world. With Galton's blessing these theories spawned a political movement advocating the enactment (...) of statutes designed to encourage the propagation of eugenically fit human beings and discourage the propagation of eugenically unfit ones. Yet, while such laws were commonly adopted throughout North America and Northern Europe, the British homeland of Galton and Darwin proved reluctant to act by statutory fiat in the field of eugenics. (shrink)

Galton defined eugenics as the science of improvement of the human race germ plasm through better breeding and claimed that the study of agencies under social control which may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations should be pursued. Eugenic theoretical approaches and eugenic state political policies are deliberate intentions of adopting eugenic measures, whether or not they have been actually implemented and no matter how successful the results of those practices might have been. They involve agents and (...) goals to be achieved. Some eugenists intended that eugenic programmes should be enforced by state agencies; others defended that those programmes might be implemented on a voluntary choice. The eugenic consequences of practices that were not deliberately designed to have eugenic goals are also considered. This latter category is very often relevant while discussing eugenics as related to a number of new biotechnologies. The concern with eugenics today does not focus so much on the risks of population improvement programmes to be implemented by central powers; nevertheless, practices adopted by health institutions, insurance and legal agencies may lead to eugenic consequences. The social and eugenic implications of the Human Genome Project are discussed. (shrink)