As would be fitting in an introductory anthropology class, my classmates and I recently learned about evolution and the ancestry of our own species, Homo sapiens. But this exploration of genetic relations soon led to discussions on a heavier topic: eugenics.
And I learned that the eugenics movement that took place in America in the early 20th century flourished right here at the University of Virginia.
Let’s back up a little bit. Eugenics is a pseudoscience and its main principle concerns the genetic betterment of the human population. In other words: imposing rules about who can reproduce, and with whom, in order to essentially make the perfect human. Whites could only marry whites, poor people were genetically inferior, and so on. Eugenics as a movement has taken place in several countries and is most often associated with Nazi Germany. But eugenics had its heyday in the U.S. as well, including at the university considered by many the pinnacle of education in the South: UVa.
Personally, I was not aware that eugenics formed a part of UVa’s history. It was shocking to learn, but also made some sense, sadly. The university was in the perfect position to advocate for the pseudoscience: being located in an environment surrounded by blatant racism while boasting of its emphasis on teaching students the most cutting-edge science principles of the time. After all, proponents of eugenics genuinely believed that they were being rational and objective in their understanding of genetics.
But the truth is, supporters of eugenics took “science” way too far. They believed that a person’s every trait – whether something physical such as eye color or something as complicated as socioeconomic class – was determined by their DNA. Society? History? None of it mattered. Even intelligence was perceived as entirely inherited (and IQ tests were even used to deem some people “unfit” for reproduction).
It’s easy to look back and think, “wow, what were those people thinking?! Of course we’re more than our genes!” After all, the scientific community has learned so much about epigenetics (the field of study concerning the environment’s impact on genes and how that in turn creates different traits in a person; think separated-twin studies) since the time when eugenics prevailed. Surely we in the present day are much more objective and cautious about scientific discoveries and their applications?
If we answer that question with a resounding “yes,” then we have already made the same mistake as proponents of eugenics.
This is not at all to say that the scientific community is not objective or that all our scientific knowledge up to date is a sham. No, the scientific method has persisted for so long because it is objective and methodical. It’s the best thing we have to help us learn about the world. Science is objective.
But scientists? Less so.
As human beings, we are situated in our own societies and cultures. Using the scientific method does not change that. There is no way for scientists to strip themselves of their traditions, beliefs, or biases when they step into a lab. It’s just not possible. Culture is present everywhere, even in science.
Okay, but if the scientific method is objective and scientists are using it, where’s the room for the scientists’ bias? For one, science, relative to cultural factors, can be overemphasized in explaining certain phenomena. For example: breast cancer. Many studies have been conducted to find potential genes that are linked to the disease, but how much do we hear about the corporations whose capitalist drive for profit creates many of the carcinogens linked with the illness? Likewise, scientists are searching for genes linked to alcoholism, but what about the structural economic conditions that lead people to a state of helplessness where substance use feels like the best escape?
The bottom line is that science is not 100% neutral. What we choose to look for and use to explain things almost always is tied to an aspect of culture. This doesn’t mean we have to throw up our hands and decide that we can never find scientific truth. What it does mean is that we should be aware of the role society plays in science – a role that eugenicists at UVa and around the country failed to acknowledge.
