Daily Archives: June 21, 2020

Geneticist Dr. Kat Arney explores the stories of two women one a scientist fascinated by dancing mice, the other a seamstress with a deadly family legacy who made significant contributions to our understanding of cancer as a disease driven by genetic changes. Yet while their work paved the way for lifesaving screening programs for families, it was used by some as justification for eugenics the idea of removing genetic defectives from the population.

Born in Minnesota in 1879, Maud Slye was a cancer pathologist who dedicated her career to studying patterns of cancer inheritance in more than 150,000 mice. But as well as being a dedicated scientist (as well as a part-time poet), she was also wedded to eugenic ideas, suggesting that If we had records for human beings comparable to those for mice, we could stamp out cancer in a generation. At present, we take no account at all of the laws of heredity in the making of human young. Do not worry about romance. Romance will take care of itself. But knowledge can be applied even to romance.

While her ideas were controversial, Slyes work earned her a gold medal from the American Medical Society in 1914 and from the American Radiological Association in 1922. She was also awarded the Ricketts Prize from the University of Chicago in 1915 and an honorary doctorate from Brown University in 1937. She was even nominated for a Nobel prize in 1923.

Over the decades since Slyes death in 1954, weve come to understand that the hereditary aspects of cancer susceptibility are much more complicated than she originally suggested, although her work was vital in establishing inherited gene variations as an essential thread of cancer research.

Running parallel to Slyes work in mice was the research carried out by Aldred Warthin, a doctor working at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. One day in 1895, a chance meeting between Warthin and a local seamstress, Pauline Gross, set the two of them off on a 25-year-long quest to understand why so many members of Paulines family had died from cancer at a young age.

Pauline spent years compiling detailed family histories, enabling Warthin to trace the pattern of inheritance through Family G, as it became known. Like Slye, Warthin was a fan of eugenic ideas, describing Paulines family as an example of progressive degenerative inheritance the running-out of a family line through the gradual development of an inferior stock.

He was also quoted as saying in a 1922 lecture: Today it is recognized that all men are not born equal. We are not equal so far as the value of our bodily cells is concerned.

Perhaps as a direct result of growing public concern about eugenics, Warthins work fell out of favor. Paulines detailed genealogy lay undisturbed in a closet in the university until the 1960s, when American doctor Henry Lynch and social worker Anne Krush rediscovered her work and continued extending and investigating Family G.

Nearly a decade on from that first meeting between Pauline and Warthin, researchers finally pinned down the underlying genetic cause of this deadly legacy: an inherited variant of the MSH2 gene, which normally repairs mismatched DNA strands. Today, members of Family G and others around the world carrying dangerous variants in mismatch repair genes can undergo genetic testing, with a range of preventative and screening options available.

The story of Pauline and Family G, and the impact that their genetic legacy has had on the family down the generations, is beautifully told in the book Daughter of Family G, a memoir by Ami McKay.

Full transcript, links and references available online atGeneticsUnzipped.com

Genetics Unzippedis the podcast from the UKGenetics Society,presented by award-winning science communicator and biologistKat Arneyand produced byFirst Create the Media.Follow Kat on Twitter@Kat_Arney,Genetics Unzipped@geneticsunzip,and the Genetics Society at@GenSocUK

Listen to Genetics Unzipped onApple Podcasts(iTunes)Google Play,Spotify,orwherever you get your podcasts

See the original post here:

Podcast: The dark connection between cancer research and the eugenics movement - Genetic Literacy Project

UCL has renamed two lecture theatres and a building that honoured the prominent eugenicists Francis Galton and Karl Pearson.

The university said on Friday that the Galton lecture theatre had been renamed lecture theatre 115, the Pearson lecture theatre changed to lecture theatre G22 and the Pearson building to the north-west wing.

Galton coined the term eugenics in 1883 and endowed UCL with his personal collection and archive along with a bequest for the countrys first professorial chair of eugenics of which Pearson was the first holder, the university said.

It said that signs on the building and lecture theatres would be taken down with immediate effect. Other changes to the names on maps and signposts would be made as soon as practicable.

UCLs president and provost, Prof Michael Arthur, said the move was an important first step for the university as it acknowledged and addressed its historical links with the eugenics movement.

This problematic history has, and continues, to cause significant concern for many in our community and has a profound impact on the sense of belonging that we want all of our staff and students to have, he said.

Although UCL is a very different place than it was in the 19th century, any suggestion that we celebrate these ideas or the figures behind them creates an unwelcoming environment for many in our community.

I am also clear that this decision is just one step in a journey and we need to go much further by listening to our community and taking practical and targeted steps to address racism and inequality.

Eugenics was the study of the selective breeding of humans to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

The decision was made by Arthur and ratified by the universitys council following a recommendation from its buildings naming and renaming committee.

The committee, made up of staff, students, and equality, diversity and inclusion representatives, will also oversee any future renaming of the areas, UCL said.

Ijeoma Uchegbu, a professor of pharmaceutical nanoscience and the provosts envoy for race equality, said: I cannot begin to express my joy at this decision. Our buildings and spaces are places of learning and aspiration and should never have been named after eugenicists.

Today UCL has done the right thing.

The renaming follows a series of recommendations made by members of the inquiry into the history of eugenics at UCL, which reported back earlier this year.

A response group of senior UCL representatives, including academic staff, equality experts and the Students Union, is being formed to consider all the recommendations from the inquiry.

The group will look at action such as funding new scholarships to study race and racism, a commitment to ensure UCL staff and students learn about the history and legacy of eugenics, and the creation of a research post to further examine the universitys history of eugenics.

It will draw up an implementation plan for consideration by the academic board and approval by UCLs council.

View original post here:

UCL renames three facilities that honoured prominent eugenicists - The Guardian

University College London has denamed buildings which honour eugenicists as a step towards addressing its historic links with the movement.

Lecture theatres and a building named after prominent eugenicists Francis Galton and Karl Pearson have been given new names, the university announced.

The Galton Lecture Theatre has been renamed Lecture Theatre 115, the Pearson Lecture Theatre changed to Lecture Theatre G22 and the Pearson Building to the North-West Wing.

Victorian scientist Francis Galton coined the term eugenics and endowed UCL with his personal collection and archive along with a bequest for the country's first professorial chair of eugenics of which Karl Pearson was the first holder, the university said.

It said that signs on the building and lecture theatres will be taken down with immediate effect while other changes to the names on maps and signposts will take place as soon as "practicable".

UCL president and provost Professor Michael Arthur said he was "delighted" that the decision to "dename" the lecture theatres and buildings has been ratified by the university's council.

He said the move was an "important first step" for the university as it acknowledges and addresses its historic links with the eugenics movement.

"This problematic history has, and continues, to cause significant concern for many in our community and has a profound impact on the sense of belonging that we want all of our staff and students to have," he said.

"Although UCL is a very different place than it was in the 19th century, any suggestion that we celebrate these ideas or the figures behind them creates an unwelcoming environment for many in our community.

"I am also clear that this decision is just one step in a journey and we need to go much further by listening to our community and taking practical and targeted steps to address racism and inequality."

The decision was made by Prof Arthur and ratified by the university's council following a recommendation from its buildings naming and renaming committee.

The committee, made up of staff, students, and equality, diversity and inclusion representatives, will also oversee any future renaming of the areas, UCL said.

Professor of pharmaceutical nanoscience Ijeoma Uchegbu, the provost's envoy for race equality, said: "I cannot begin to express my joy at this decision.

"Our buildings and spaces are places of learning and aspiration and should never have been named after eugenicists. Today UCL has done the right thing."

The renaming follows a series of recommendations made by members of the inquiry into the history of eugenics at UCL, which reported back earlier this year.

A response group of senior UCL representatives, including academic staff, equality experts and the Students' Union, is being formed to consider all the recommendations from the inquiry.

The group will look at action such as funding new scholarships to study race and racism, a commitment to ensure UCL staff and students learn about the history and legacy of eugenics, and the creation of a research post to further examine the university's history of eugenics.

It will draw up implementation plan for consideration by the academic board and approval by UCL's council.

More:

University College London changes names of three buildings that were named in honour of eugenicists - Telegraph.co.uk

Stephen Hsu / Michigan State University

Away from the main battlegrounds of the war on racism and on the unresolved legacy of slavery in the United States, there are bitter skirmishes over eugenics.

This week Michigan State University's senior vice president of research and innovation Stephen Hsu walked the plank after vehement criticism of his views on inherited IQ. He will remain as a tenured professor of theoretical physics.

I believe this is what is best for our university to continue our progress forward," MSU President Samuel Stanley Jr explained. "The exchange of ideas is essential to higher education, and I fully support our faculty and their academic freedom to address the most difficult and controversial issues.But when senior administrators at MSU choose to speak out on any issue, they are viewed as speaking for the university as a whole.Their statements should not leave any room for doubt about their, or our, commitment to the success of faculty, staff and students.

The controversy has become so heated that it is difficult to assess what it is all about. However, Dr Hsu has worked with BGI, a Chinese genome-sequencing company which is trying to market genome-sequencing for parents who want babies with high IQs.

In 2017, he co-founded a company called Genomic Prediction, which provides advanced genetic testing for IVF. According to its website its technology identifies candidate embryos for implantation which are genetically normal screening for Down syndrome, for instance, which no one at MSU objected to.

What was controversial was Hsus suggestion that his company might be able to spot embryos with genes that make a high IQ more likely.

He has also defended the notion that people with higher intelligence are more useful to society. "If you study the history of science or technology, you're going to inevitably come to the conclusion that it's people who are of above average ability who make these breakthroughs and generate a disproportionate amount of value for humanity," he told the Lansing State Journal in 2012.

Views like this were enough for critics on Twitter and elsewhere to tag his work as promoting scientific racism, sexism, eugenicist research and conflicts of interest.

Petitions for and against Hsu circulated on the internet. Harvards Professor Steven Pinker and about 1500 others argued that

The charges of racism and sexism against Dr. Hsu are unequivocally false and the purported evidence supporting these charges ranges from innuendo and rumor to outright lies. We highlight that there is zero concrete evidence that Hsu has performed his duties as VP in an unfair or biased manner. Therefore, removing Hsu from his post as VP would be to capitulate to rumor and character assassination.

But, in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests and his association with eugenics, Hsu was doomed. The #ShutDownSTEM and #ShutDownAcademia movement was influential on the MSU campus and its activists appear to have forced his resignation. (It argues that Academia and STEM are global endeavors that sustain a racist system, where Black people are murdered.)

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

Continued here:

More protests over eugenics, this time at Michigan State - BioEdge

Jacques Testart, the father of the first test-tube baby in France, in his book, Le dsir du gne(1992), wrote: With Christian evangelization the elimination of unwanted children disappeared, at least officially, until the Renaissance. This author is most unlikely to be suspected of benevolence towards the Church. He says of himself: When, as a militant Trotskyist, I deepened the principles of the permanent revolution... [Luf transparent]. It is one of the characteristics of evangelization to have been able to impose respect for enfants on peoples won over to the cause of eugenics in all its formsapart from the Jewish people who are custodians of the Old Testament, and to have defended them [enfants] against the crimes of which they were the object.

This defense of the little ones is both positive, encouraging the procreation and education of children, and negative, by banning infanticide and its substitutes.

From the first century, the Didache (around A.D.70) testified to an absolute prohibition: do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn (2,2). Shortly after, an author wrote (around A.D. 130): Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born (Epistle to Barnabas, 19:5). This warning came up very often in the following centuries, due to the entrenchment of barbaric habits among pagan nations which were converted only little by little.

St. Justin Martyr states (around A.D. 150): But as for us, we have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part ofwickedmen. He gives several reasons: and this we have been taught lest we should do any one an injury, and lest we shouldsinagainstGod. But there is another reason, which reveals a terrible reality: first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution so now we see you rear children only for this shameful use; And any one who uses suchpersons, besides the godless andinfamousand impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother (First Apology, chp. 27).

This is explained by the fate that often awaited abandoned children in Rome. When they were collected, they were sometimes adopted. But more often than not they fell into the worst abjection; these alumni (the name given to these abandoned and taken in children) became pleasure slaves, who were delivered to prostitution. Saint Justin is not the only one to note this fact.

Clement of Alexandria (150-215) writes: Besides, the wretchesknownot how many tragedies the uncertainty of intercourse produces. For fathers, unmindful of children of theirs that have been exposed, often without theirknowledge, have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself, and daughters that are prostitutes (The Instructor, Bk. 3, ch. 3). When you expose your children, adds Tertullian (155-220) in his Apology, counting on the compassion of others to collect them and give them better parents than you, do you forget the risks of incest, the awful chances that you make them run? Minucius Flix (died around 250) also says: You often expose the children born in your homes to the mercy of others; then you happen to be pushed towards them by a blind passion, to sin without knowing it towards your sons; so you prepare without being aware of the vicissitudes of an incestuous tragedy. Finally Lactantius (250-325): who is ignorant what things may happen, or are accustomed to happen, in the case of each sex, even through error? For this is shown by the example of dipus alone, confused with twofold guilt (The Divine Institutes, Bk.VI, ch. 20).

Christian charity intervened very early to save these unfortunates from their fate. The Apostolic Constitutions, at the beginning of the 4th century, warn the faithful that if When any Christian becomes an orphan, whether it be a young man or a maid, it is good that some one of the brethren who is without a child should take the young man, and esteem him in the place of a son (Bk.IV, #1). But charity did not extend only to Christian children, since Tertullian calls out the persecutors thus: our compassion spends more in the streets than yours does in the temples (Apology, ch. 42). And St. Augustine adds: sometimes foundlings which heartless parents have exposed in order to their being cared for by any passer-by, are picked up by holy virgins, and are presented for baptism by these persons (Letter 98).

Athenagoras (133-190) joins the prohibition of abortion to that of the exhibition: And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it (A Plea for the Christians, ch. 35). Take note of the vigorous affirmation of the humanity of the fetus and its intangibility, which contrasts with contemporary thought.

Tertullian also noted the crime of the pagans, and taking advantage of the accusation of the Thyestian Feast[1] launched against the Christians, he made this scathing retort: how many even of your rulers, notable for their justice to you and for their severe measures against us, may I charge in their own consciences with the sin of putting their offspring to death?

As to any difference in the kind of murder, it is certainly the more cruel way to kill by drowning, or by exposure to cold and hunger and dogs... In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed (op cit ch. 9).

Minucius Flix also opposes this accusation: And now I should wish to meet him who says or believes that we are initiated by the slaughter and blood of an infant. Think you that it can be possible for so tender, so little a body to receive those fatal wounds; for any one to shed, pour forth, and drain that new blood of a youngling, and of a man scarcely come into existence? No one can believe this, except one who can dare to do it. And I see that you at one time expose your begotten children to wild beasts and to birds; at another, that you crush them when strangled with a miserable kind of death. There are some women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels, and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. It is from your gods that this barbaric use comes (op. cit. c. XXX).

Lactantius who influenced Constantine, sums up the arguments of the previous centuries: Therefore let no one imagine that even this is allowed, to strangle newly-born children, which is the greatest impiety; for God breathes into their souls for life, and not for death. But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not givenWhat are they whom a false piety compels to expose their children? Can they be considered innocent who expose their own offspring as a prey to dogs, and as far as it depends upon themselves, kill them in a more cruel manner than if they had strangled them?... It is therefore as wicked to expose as it is to kill (op.cit.).

St. Jerome does not fail to castigate these abominable practices which alas! were also found among Christians: Some go so far as to take potionsand thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when (as often happens) they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder (Letter 22:13).

St. Augustine sends a terrible warning to the prevaricators: Those who, either by bad will or by criminal action, seek to obstruct the generation of children, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honorable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk. I, ch. XV).

The Fathers also encourage two positive and complementary aspects to fidelity between spouses and to dignified and responsible procreation. St. Justin writes: But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently (op. cit., ch. 29). We find the same doctrine in Athenagoras: Therefore, having the hope ofeternallife, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of thesoul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to thelawslaid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children (op. cit., ch. 33).

[1] Thyeste, a mythological person, seduced his brothers wife; his brother then found out about his wife's affair with Thyeste and decided to take revenge. He killed all of his brother's sons, cooked them and served them to Thyeste as revenge. People accused the first Christians of this practice during the mysteries.

Follow this link:

Eugenics Yesterday and Today (5): The Great Parenthesis of the Christian Era - FSSPX.News

As a supporter of Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, I looked forward to reading his thoughts on moving the city forward (Worldwide change starts in Minneapolis, Opinion Exchange, June 18) but by the time I finished, my excitement was gone.

Early on he talks about the obstacle of the Minneapolis Police Officers Federation, agreeing that culture eats policy for breakfast but then he proceeds to lay out policy change after policy change, apparently believing that somehow things are going to be different. Sorry, Mayor, without addressing Lt. Bob Kroll and the legacy that created such a toxic culture, your policy proposals dont stand a snowballs chance on a hot summer day of ever making a difference.

Mayor, focus your energy at the source of the problem, and many of the changes you want to put in place may happen. If you dont, expect the citizen vote this fall to change the city charter to do the job for you.

Howie Smith, Minneapolis

Frey speaks of needing a scalpel rather than an ax to change the Minneapolis Police Department, but he needs to brush up on his surgery skills. He identifies a quantifiable definition of bad apples: officers who have a history of sustained misconduct complaints. But his solution is merely to limit new officers exposure to this rotten core rather than to remove the core itself. This problem wont wait on the tortuous path of updating legislation that Frey advocates. If the only way to bring meaningful reform to an insidiously corrupt department is to raze and rebuild, its time to pick up the ax.

Meanwhile, another nail pounds into Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freemans career with the revelation that his office prematurely released autopsy findings with the implication that George Floyds death could be attributed to something other than the knee upon his neck. Freemans latest tenure as county attorney began 10 years ago when he refused to prosecute the Metro Gang Strike Force, a police unit that flagrantly abused its charter by harassing innocent citizens and looting confiscated property. Freemans more recent failures to bring proper charges against the officers who killed Jamar Clark and George Floyd make it crystal clear that certain citizens can always count on immunity from his prosecutorial duties.

There is a petition in circulation to recall Freeman from his post. There is one to recall Frey as well. The urgency of this moment demands that officials who cant move us forward must get out of the way.

Jeff Naylor, Minneapolis

The commentary in Wednesdays Star Tribune by Norm Coleman, Defund and disband City Hall leadership (Opinion Exchange), was excellent and hit the nail on the head in so many ways. It should be read by every single lawmaker in the state. It puts the blame where it should be for the mess Minnesota is in today namely, on the leaders and not the Police Department and gives suggestions for cleaning up this great state. The governor and Minneapolis City Council need to read every word of it and wake up. We need more articles like this and less on the trashing of the Police Department.

Marge Miller, Coon Rapids

There is probably a kernel of truth in Colemans assertion that the remedy isnt to defund and disband the Police Department: In a less-than-ideal world there likely will always be a need for law enforcement. However, he fails to consider what many of us want from such a monumental change to the citys approach to social problems. My understanding of the call for disbanding is not that we desire anarchy and chaos, but rather that policing is a treatment of symptoms of far more profound and pervasive problems, and a much better (look to New Jersey, of all places) approach is to treat those fundamental, underlying problems. (What Mpls. can learn from Camden, editorial, June 18.)

In my own view, money freed up by substantially defunding the police, as well as by increasing tax revenue, should be directed to improved education, nutrition, housing, health care, living-wage requirements, jobs, environmental protection and public transportation, really a long litany of social ills. Unfortunately, media coverage of this aspect of the call has been scant at best, perhaps because proposals like those will not make for striking headlines, and, maybe more likely, because those in the public eye calling for change do not yet have a good grasp of what needs to be done.

John D. Tobin Jr., St. Paul

MEDICAL EXAMINER

Trust the doctor, and the process

Thank you for the article in support of Dr. Andrew Baker, the Hennepin County medical examiner (Autopsy examiner in Floyd case defended as fair-minded, June 19). The reaction to the preliminary report was unfortunate and damaged the reputation of Dr. Baker and his office. It is unfortunate that so many educated people were not just unaware of the process but never bothered to understand and jumped to the conclusion they wanted to hear. Preliminary is just what it means. In the end, the two autopsy reports of George Floyd are nearly identical.

Apologies to Dr. Baker and thank you for not jumping to the desired conclusion.

Mark Odland, Edina

HISTORICAL FIGURES

Treat them all with complexity

Jennifer Brooks wrote a thoughtful and thought-provoking column about the toppling of the Columbus statue at the Capitol (History at Capitol isnt carved in stone, June 18).

But there was one jarring sentence in the piece: You can find two statues of aviator and Nazi enthusiast Charles Lindbergh at the Capitol.

In an opinion piece that delves into the complexity and need to understand the historical background of our heroes and villains, I found the cavalier and shallow reference disturbing.

Lindbergh remains one of the most complex and interesting characters in the American pantheon. His historic flight opened up the world of aviation. He invented a biomedical pump that helped develop the science of heart surgeries. His support of Robert Goddard helped America lead the world for a time in rocketry. He was spokesman for millions in trying to keep the U.S. from the war, and when war was declared, he flew 50 combat missions as a civilian and made useful suggestions on improving our military. He spent much of his later life promoting environmental causes.

He has been accused of anti-Semitism, which he denied. He was an advocate of eugenics. He accepted a medal from Hermann Goering, which he refused to return. He fathered seven children with three women while still married to Anne Morrow Lindbergh.

OK, lets sum all that up with aviator and Nazi enthusiast. Doesnt seem to capture the essential Lindbergh, does it? Or, as Brooks stated: If you listen to just one side of history over and over, you can miss the most important parts and the most interesting people.

Al Zdon, St. Paul

RECENT UNREST

Good work, firefighters

Great job to the Minneapolis firefighters for their work during the very difficult circumstances they were up against during the nights of unrest in the city (Firefighters blast city riot response, June 18). I was personally very proud of all of you for the hard work that you did while putting your lives on the line. Hopefully your mayor and fire chief have some emotional empathy and understanding toward all of you and what you all had to endure and experience during those nights.

Please also know that post-traumatic stress disorder is very real. All fire chiefs need to recognize that and take it seriously because there are lasting consequences for those who do not seek or ask for help. Dont be afraid to reach out. PTSD or any other symptoms related to what you witnessed or experienced can be treated.

Mark Olson, St. Louis Park

The writer is a retired firefighter and trauma therapist.

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.

Read more here:

Readers Write: Police and City Hall reform, medical examiner, treatment of historical figures, firefighters - Minneapolis Star Tribune