¹ Brock, W. H., ‘Bernard John Norton: 1945–1984’, British Journal for the History of Science (1985) 18, pp. 342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Norton, Bernard, ‘Fisher's Entrance into Evolutionary Science: the Role of Eugenics’ in Grene, M. (ed), Dimensions of Darwinism, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 19–29.Google Scholar

³ Mayr, Ernst and Provine, William (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Cambridge Mass, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Bowler, P., The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1990, Baltimore and London, 1983Google Scholar; Grene, M. (ed) op. cit. (2).Google Scholar

⁵ Allen, Garland, Life Science in the 20th Century, New York, 1975Google Scholar; ‘The New Experimental Biology’, special issue of Journal of the History of Biology (1981), 14, no. 1.Google Scholar

⁶ Olby, Robert, Origins of Mendelism, 2nd edn, Chicago, 1985.Google Scholar

⁷ Harwood, Jonathan, ‘National Styles in Science: Genetics in Germany and the United States between the World Wars’, Isis (1987), 78, pp. 390–414CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Sapp, Jan, Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics, New York and Oxford, 1987.Google Scholar

⁸ On the United States see Haller, Mark, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1963Google Scholar; Pickens, Donald, Eugenics and the Progressives, Nashville, 1968Google Scholar; and Ludmerer, Kenneth, Genetics and American Society, Baltimore, 1972Google Scholar. On Britain see Farrall, Lyndsay, The Origins and Growth of the English Eugenics Movement, 1865–1925, Ph.D. thesis Indiana University, 1970Google Scholar; Searle, G. R., Eugenics and Politics in Britain, 1900–1914, Leyden, 1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and MacKenzie, Donald, Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930, Edinburgh 1981Google Scholar. For a comparative analysis of movements in both countries, see Kevles, Daniel J., In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, Harmondsworth, 1985.Google Scholar

⁹ Cowan, Ruth Schwartz, ‘Francis Gallon's Statistical Ideas: the Influence of Eugenics’, Isis (1972), 63, pp. 509–528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Norton, , op. cit. (2)Google Scholar and ‘Karl Pearson and Statistics: the Social Origins of Scientific Innovation’, Social Studies of Science (1978); 8, pp. 3–34Google Scholar; MacKenzie, Donald, ‘Statistical Theory and Social Interests: a Case Study’, Social Studies of Science (1978), 8, pp. 35–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁰ Müller-Hill, Benno, Murderous Science, Oxford, 1988Google Scholar; Weiss, Sheila, Race Hygiene and National Efficiency: the Eugenics of Wilhelm Schallmayer, Berkeley, 1987Google Scholar; Proctor, Robert N., Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis, Cambridge Mass., 1988Google Scholar. These books also provide a guide to the extensive German literature on race hygiene.

¹¹ For example, Lilienthal, Georg, ‘“Rheinlandbastarde”, Rassenhygiene und das Problem der rassenideologischen Kontinuität’, Medizinhistorisches Journal (1980), 15, pp. 426–436Google Scholar; Weindling, P., ‘Die Ver breitung rassenhygienischen/eugenischen Gedankengutes in bürgerlichen und sozialistischen Kreisen in der Weimarer Republik’, Medizinhistorisches Journal (1987), 22, pp. 352–368.Google Scholar

¹² Proctor, , op. cit. (10), p. 117.Google Scholar

¹³ Haller, for example, distinguishes between the racist ‘pessimistic’ faction which dominated American eugenics during the 1920s and a ‘moderate’ minority which came to prevail during the 1930s (op. cit. 8, chapter XI and pp. 122, 179–183). Although G. R. Searle does not define the term, he refers to a small minority of ‘reform eugenists’ in Britain before 1914 (op. cit. 8, p. 27 and passim.) which extended its influence during the 1930s (Searle, ‘Eugenics and Politics in Britain in the 1930s’, Annals of Science (1979), 36, pp. 159–169CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed). Garland Allen argues that a more moderate and scientifically defensible ‘new’ eugenics began to displace the ‘old’ eugenics in the United States from the mid-1920s (viz ‘The Misuse of Biological Hierarchies: the American Eugenics Movement, 1900–1940’, History and Philosophy of Life Sciences (1983), 5, pp. 105–128Google Scholar; and ‘The Role of Experts in Scientific Controversy’ in Engelhardt, H. Tristram and Caplan, Arthur L. (eds), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 169–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Kevles, , op. cit. (8), chapter XI and passim.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For example, while Roll-Hansen (this issue) notes that Scandinavian reformists were sceptical of positive eugenics, Kevles, (op. cit. 8, pp. 178ff)Google Scholar suggests that British and American reformists often advocated positive eugenics. Similarly, according to Searle, (op. cit. 8, p. 44)Google Scholar, race differences were less central to the British mainline tradition than, for example, in the United States.

¹⁶ Roll-Hansen, this issue; Kevles, , op. cit. (8), p. 167.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Roll-Hansen, this volume; Allen, (1987) op. cit. (13), pp. 172–173Google Scholar; Kevles, , op. cit. (8), pp. 106, 127, 174.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Roll-Hansen, this volume; Allen, (1987) op. cit. (13)Google Scholar; Kevles, , op. cit.(8), chapters IX and X.Google Scholar

¹⁹ For example, Allen, (1987) op. cit. (13), pp. 172–173.Google Scholar

²⁰ Ludmerer, , ‘American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement, 1905–1935’, Journal of the History of Biology (1969), 2, pp. 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Ludmerer, , op. cit. (20), p. 356.Google Scholar

²² Compare Ludmerer, 's claim in op. cit. (20), p. 358Google Scholar with ‘Men and Mice at Edinburgh’, Journal of Heredity (1939), 30, pp. 371–373.Google Scholar

²³ Kevles, , op. cit. (8), p. 251Google Scholar; Paul, Diane, ‘Eugenics and the Left’, Journal of History of Ideas (1984), 45, pp. 567–590CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; on Nachtsheim see the paper by Weindling in this volume and Vogel, F., ‘Hans Nachtsheim, 1890–1979’, Berichte und Mitteilungen der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (1980), Heft 3, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar

²⁴ I have discussed this issue at greater length in ‘The I.Q. in History’, Social Studies of Science (1983), 13, pp. 465–477 on pp. 473–475.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ludmerer, (op. cit. 20)Google Scholar also claimed R. C. Punnett and William Castle as converts, but Barker's evidence (this issue) makes the extent of this conversion doubtful.

²⁶ Op. cit. (22). See also Paul, (op. cit. 23) and Roll-Hansen, (this issue).Google Scholar

²⁷ Kevles, , op. cit. (8), p. 104.Google Scholar

²⁸ Kevles, , op. cit. (8), pp. 121–122.Google Scholar

²⁹ Bateson, , ‘Common Sense in Racial Problems’, Eugenics Review (1919–1920), 13, 325–338.Google Scholar

³⁰ Cited by Cravens, Hamilton, The Triumph of Evolution: American Scientists and the Heredity-Environment Controversy, 1900–1940, Philadelphia, 1978, p. 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Bateson, to Pease, Michael, 28 01 1925Google Scholar, Bateson papers, sheet no. 1876, John Innes Horticultural Institute.

³² Kevles, , op. cit. (8), pp. 37–38Google Scholar and ‘Genetics in the United States and Great Britain, 1890–1930’, Isis (1980), 71, pp. 441–455 on p. 454.Google Scholar

³³ Kimmelman, B., ‘The American Breeders' Association: Genetics and Eugenics in an Agricultural Context, 1903–1913’, Social Studies of Science (1983), 13, pp. 163–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Allen, Garland, ‘The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910–1940’, Osiris (1986), 2, pp. 225–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

³⁴ Op. cit. (22), p. 373.Google Scholar

³⁵ Allen, , ‘Genetics, Eugenics and Class Struggle’, Genetics (1975), 79, pp. 29–45.Google ScholarPubMed

³⁶ Harwood, J., op. cit. (7).Google Scholar

³⁷ Although they make little of it, even historians who emphasize the importance of intellectual factors have noticed how concerned geneticists were with the discipline's image. Cravens, for example, remarks that reputable biologists were quite willing to tolerate the eugenics movement and to perhaps even support some of its goals so long as the movement appeared disinterested, scientifically credible, and dignified. But the activities of Laughlin [an American racist who deployed genetic and eugenic arguments in promoting anti-immigration legislation] and others put science—genetics, after all, so far as the public could tell—in a distasteful and ugly light, (op. cit. [30], p. 177).

Ludmerer, too, observes that geneticists ‘were dismayed by the distorted image of genetics that eugenicists were popularizing’ (op. cit. 20, p. 354).