Who Shall and Shall Not Have a Place in the World?
By Lily Hu,
Los Angeles Review of Books
| 02. 13. 2025
IN MAY 1921, the organizers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics assured the public that its conference, to be held later that year in September, would be taking a measured approach to “the topic of human racial differences.” All sides of the matter would be soberly considered; no conclusions would be reached in a hurry. The public could feel secure that, as the statement brightly declared, “certain prejudices directed toward existing races will be removed when allowance is made for the influence of their social and educational environment, and their fundamentally sound and strong racial characteristics are brought to light. On the other hand,” the announcement more somberly continued, “limits to development of certain races and the inalterability through education and environment of the fundamental characteristics of certain stocks will be considered.”
By the time the first meeting of the congress rolled around, a scant five months later, the science seemed to have been settled—and it apparently gave reason for considerable alarm. In his welcome address, Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History and soon-to-be...
Related Articles
By Grace Won, KQED [with CGS' Katie Hasson] | 12.02.2025
In the U.S., it’s illegal to edit genes in human embryos with the intention of creating a genetically engineered baby. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Bay Area startups are focused on just that. It wouldn’t be the first...
By Emma Cieslik, Ms. Magazine | 11.20.2025
Several recent Biopolitical Times posts (1, 2, 3, 4) have called attention to the alarmingly rapid commercialization of “designer baby” technologies: polygenic embryo screening (especially its use to purportedly screen for traits like intelligence), in vitro gametogenesis (lab-made eggs and sperm), and heritable genome editing (also termed embryo editing or reproductive gene editing). Those three, together with artificial wombs, have been dubbed the “Gattaca stack” by Brian Armstrong, CEO of the cryptocurrency company...
By Adam Feuerstein, Stat | 11.20.2025
The Food and Drug Administration was more than likely correct to reject Biohaven Pharmaceuticals’ treatment for spinocerebellar ataxia, a rare and debilitating neurodegenerative disease. At the very least, the decision announced Tuesday night was not a surprise to anyone paying attention. Approval...