Today marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Francis Galton, a man who is largely responsible for the birth of eugenics, and whose broader intellectual legacy is colossal. A thread.
Galton has been part of my life since I joined the now-defunct Galton Laboratory in 1993, and I am still a member of the former Galton Institute - now the Adelphi Genetics Forum. I’ll be giving the Galton Lecture for them in the Autumn. bit.ly/3JyrjLW
He’s fascinating, and awful, but his legacy is part of our present. Here are some bits of Galtonia (from Control, my new book on the history of eugenics).
Born in Birmingham into a wealthy family of Quaker gunsmiths, he lived in Joseph Priestly’s house, and attended King Edwards. An extract from his school diary:
Galton was Darwin’s half-cousin. This was his comment on the publication of The Origin of Species:
Galton invented many things, including the dog whistle. Ironic that this has become associated with racist signalling given what a robust racist he was.
And a new way to cut round cakes, published in @Nature, no less.
His attempts to quantify female beauty are grim. In order to not be detected, he designed a glove with 3 needles in the fingers so he could score whilst hand in pocket. His ‘pricker’:
An obsessive ranker of people, his 1st major scientific book was Hereditary Genius (1869), in which he attempts to quantify men of hereditary eminence. It is an explicitly white supremacist work, and pseudoscientific to its core.
It’s a weird book, and fatally flawed: the status of greatness is assessed via reputation and obituaries. His data is literally opinion, and the stats are suspiciously precise.
He coins the word ‘eugenics’ in 1873, and it becomes the enduring passion of his life.
(This definition from 1907, with his primary disciple Karl Pearson).
Near the end of his life, Galton did something that scientists should be very wary of: he wrote a novel.
Kantsaywhere is a eugenic utopia, where couples are assessed and matched. It was mostly destroyed by his sister. What remains is in the UCL archives.
He died in 1911. Ironically given his obsession with heredity, he had no children, despite his marriage to Louisa (née Butler), and his genes and genius would not be passed down the generations. Look how sad she looks.
Galton's fingerprints are in the work of Marie Stopes, Churchill, Balfour, RA Fisher, and explicitly in the emergence of eugenics policies in the USA and Nazi Germany. (He was also instrumental in the development of fingerprinting for forensics.
Idolised by men of science: Charles Davenport was inspired by Galton to start the eugenics movement in the US - he founded the Eugenics Records Office at Cold Spring Harbor. Karl Pearson (the 1st Galton Professor) wrote an almost unreadable fawning hagiography.
The 1st International Eugenics Conference in 1912, co-chaired by Churchill, keynote by Balfour, was in held in his honour, a year after his death.
Anyway, there you go. We do not judge people by our standards, but assess them by theirs. So, happy birthday to you, Francis Galton, a genius and an utter bastard in any age.
Round 2: here’s more on the scientific racist story from yesterday’s thread. This time, it’s focussed on the access and utility of Biobank data to fuel their ideologically driven agenda.
And the connected reports on the weird figureheads of the pronatalism cult, that @hopenothate and @harryshukman got stuck into.
These people are scientifically illiterate, ostentatiously strange, but motivated and publicity slakeless.
It is worth noting that though the focus is on Kirkegaard, the Collinses, Edward Dutton and a few others, there are plenty more of these grifters floating around in this faecosystem. A couple of them are or were bona fide academics, though in largely unrelated fields.
Ok, here we go: Much of my work concerns the history and return of scientific racism. I’ve written extensively about attempts to resurrect the shuffling corpse of
race science and eugenics for many years. Bigotry dressed up as biology. 1/n
Today, the Guardian, alongside @hopenothate , today publish an in depth undercover investigation into the efforts of a network of far right race and IQ obsessives, who have been trying to influence discourse about race science. theguardian.com/world/2024/oct…
@hopenothate I’ve been tracking these ideas and clowns for years, and have helped with this incredible investigation.
I was naïve in writing them off as basement dwelling racist weirdos, as what the investigation shows is that they got organised, with funding and strategy.
A short thread on grammar, as the fewer/less crowd are outnabout. I used to really care until I started working regularly on @BBCRadio4, where I discovered that the most frequent complaints were from male grammar pedants.
They typically moaned about decimate, fewer/less, octopus and bacterium/bacteria. The thing about grammar pedants is that they’re not pedantic enough, and their corrections were often erroneous - stuff that is easy to Google - and born of doctrinaire oneupmanship.
And so I revised my position to be a descriptivist. Not everyone was taught the ‘correct’ form of grammar, which obviously, is entirely made up. The only thing that matters is effectiveness of communication. @OliverKamm is my Obi Wan on this matter.
I’ve had some fun with the race wienies today - it’s almost as if I could write a book on how to argue with a racist. Anyway, here’s some of the highlights: 1) the credentialists. How can it be that I have a job in one of the best genetics departments on Earth, and the BBC?? 😘
2) ‘you’re a disingenuous retard’
3) ‘I understand population genetics cos I have eyes’. Wish I’d known it was that easy before spending all that time learning it
I read a lot of books, and here are my non-fiction books of the year, just in time for presents, in no particular order.
1: Toxic by Sarah Ditum. Britney, Paris, Lindsay, Janet, Amy. These early-noughties mononym women who stood charged with being women at the juncture between the old media and the new. Will make you sad, angry and baffled.
2: Ultra-Processed People by @DoctorChrisVT revelations about an industrial complex that underlies so much of the health problems humankind faces, because our lives are flooded by food that is not food.
I went to see Oppenheimer. It is hard to imagine a film that I disliked more intensely. Apart from Tenet.
Positives: acting is fabulous, cinematography beautiful, music a bit overbearing but massive.
Negatives <deep breath>
* learn to write dialogue. People don’t speak like that. Every sentence is designed to elicit a zinger or exposition point in response.
* the editing is frenetic. Intercutting from different locations, colour/black and white, mad angles that make no sense.
The whole film is a montage.