The discussion in the Royal Society obituary of Lionel Penrose is quite good
on this point: I think his view was that "Human Genetics" was returning the
name of the chair to its originals meaning.  (I don't think it was intended
to derogate Galton in any way.)

Ray's point may be a good one that advances in genetics may have come
earlier if it were not for derogatory associations with Mr Hitler and his
ilk. (To lump Pearson and Galton with Mr Hitler seems a bit OTT)

JOHN BIBBY

-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of ray thomas
Sent: 10 June 2007 17:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Do we have a shared understanding of what 'eugenics' means?

Isn't that change of name of the Galton Chair indicative of the strength of
the backlash against eugenics?   And derogatory of Galton as a statistician.


Perhaps this slight on Galton could be balanced by renaming 'regression' as
'progression'?   The term 'multiple progression analysis' would do wonders
for the public image of statistisics !!!

But seriously, the backlash against the term eugenics for more than half a
century is a remarkable phenomenon.  Sciences usually define themselves
neutrally - as in the suggested substituttion of 'genetics'.   But eugenics
was defined as a science devoted to improving the human condition - as I
assume many medical sciences are defined.    The negative connotations that
'eugenics' acquired must surely have had serious consequences and may still
be having serious consequences?   

Is it possible that advances in genetics would have come much earlier  had
researchers not had to cower against the fear that they would be condemned
as eugenicists? 

Following the point about medical sciences, should we be happy with a
definition of genetics that did not assume that the purpose served was the
betterment of the human race?    And if that is the assumption, what could
be the reasons for not making that assumption explicit?

Ray Thomas
*****************************************

-----Original Message-----
From: John Bibby [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:43 PM
To: 'ray thomas'; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Do we have a shared understanding of what 'eugenics' means?


Do we have a shared understanding of what 'eugenics' means?

UCL's Galton chair changed its name from 'Eugenics' to 'Human Genetics', and
I for one have no problem with people doing research in this area (just as
people can do research on nuclear physics for all I care, but that does not
make me an H-bomb sabre-rattler)

JOHN BIBBY

PS: 
Ray says: "It appears obviously wrong that governments should take should
take decisions affecting individuals sex lives."

I'm not sure why it is 'obviously wrong'. Indeed, governments do this all
the time ....  should 'sex lives' alone be immune?



-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of ray thomas
Sent: 10 June 2007 11:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: No more eugenic please

The discussion went off-topic because members have used the list to state
claims for the moral  high ground rather than put forward any view connected
with statistics.   This is not an unusual occurence;  someone observed some
years ago that Radstats is 'radical' about everything except statistics.

We can learn from such moral posturing.   Isn't it true to say that the
messages posted on this list were all about governmental action on eugenics
or the threat of governmental action?    It appears obviously wrong that
governments should take should take decisions affecting individuals sex
lives.   This posturing ignores the fact that eugenics is more widely
practiced than is generally acknowleded and is not limited to governmental
action against the weak.    

Use of the phrase 'of good breeding'  indicates recognition of the practice
of eugenics among members of the aristocracy and upper middle classes in the
19th century.  In the 20th century it became difficult to to draw a clear
dividing line between eugenics and the proctice of contraception.   Are the
decisions made by millions of families to limit the size of their families
eugenically neutral? 

It would be suprising in the light of recent advances in the identificaton
of  genes associated with particular diseases if wealthy families are not
already using eugenics very  purposely to protect the health of their
offspring.   The  question of whether such services should be available on
the NHS must already be on many agendas.   

An unwillingess to discuss eugenics would be parallel to the unwillingness
to discuss levels of population.  The same bogy of direct governmental
control is presented; 


Ray Thomas
********************************



-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Janet Shapiro
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:55 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: No more eugenic please


I should also prefer for this contentious subject to remain on-line.  It is
important that we face up to unpleasant uses of science and statistics, in
order to sharpen arguments against them.  Also we look for possible topics
for future newsletter articles, and 'eugenics' (and whatever it is now
called) is particularly relevant  because of recent advances in identifying
genes associated with illness, applications to health insurance etc.

Janet Shapiro

***********************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************

******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************