PART ONE Heredity and Environment in Race Improvement INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT UPON RACE IMPROVEMENT BY CARL KELSEY, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF Pennsylvania, PHILADELPHIA THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A SOUND PHYSIQUE BY DUDLEY ALLEN SARGENT, M.D., DIRECTOR, HEMENWAY GYMNASIUM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY ON HUMAN SOCIETY DIRECTOR, STATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION (CARNEGIE INSTITUTION RACE IMPROVEMENT BY CONTROL OF DEFECTIVES (NEGATIVE EUGENICS) BY ALEXANDER JOHNSON, GENERAL SECRETARY, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CHARITIES AND CORRECTIONS, FORT WAYNE, IND. INFLUENCE OF HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT UPON RACE IMPROVEMENT AN INTRODUCTORY PAPER UPON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM BY CARL KELSEY, PH.D., Professor of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. · It is the purpose of this paper to give a bird's-eye view of the fields which are to be studied in detail in the other papers. As far as possible it must correlate these various studies and show the common aim. To do this without, to some extent, trespassing on others' territory is impossible. For such overlapping the indulgence of the readers and the writers is asked. It should also be remembered that in seeking to draw a large sketch the detailed evidence is necessarily omitted. Though many seemingly dogmatic statements are made, I believe they could be supported by an abundance of facts if space permitted. One of the most eminent of living biologists has recently written: "It is well known that the sociological inquiries of Malthus as to human population influenced Darwin, Wallace and Spencer, and that the concept of natural selection in the struggle for existence came to biology from above rather than from within its own sphere. The same is true of the fruitful idea of division of labor, of the general idea of evolution itself and of others—they came to biology from the human social realm." "To keep to the concept of selection for a moment: it was applied to plants and animals, it was illustrated, justified, if not demonstrated, and formulated; and now, with the imprimatur of biology it comes back to sociology as a great law of life. That it is so we take for granted, but it is surely evident that in social affairs, from which it emanated as a suggestion to biology, it must be reverified and precisely tested. Its biological form may be one thing, its sociological form may be another." I have given this quotation for several reasons. It shows us clearly that the subjects under discussion in this volume are in 'Thompson, "Heredity," p. 511. (3) part biological, in part sociological. These fields have much in common, are often interdependent, yet are separate. Many analogies exist, but laws in one are not ipso facto to be considered laws in the other. Clear thinking then demands that the two fields shall be sharply defined. Social theory gave a great impulse to biological research. Biology now places at the disposal of social workers a mass of knowledge as yet little appreciated which is, however, destined to revolutionize social programs. A discussion of "the comparative importance of heredity and environment" is likely to be very misleading. The problem is not to determine which is more important, but to discover the contribution each makes to the body politic. I know of no way of comparing the relative importance to a given man of heredity and environment any more than I know how to determine whether the stomach or the brain, whether food or air, is more important. Essentials cannot be compared. They can only be discovered and the functions of each studied. It can easily be shown that evils arising from bad heredity are not affected by changing the environment and vice versa. A feeble-minded person remains feeble minded whether he vegetates in an almshouse or is cared for at Elwyn-nor does any change affect his children. The children of athletes are not different from those of scholars provided the stock be the same; nor are those descended from church members or heretics, saints or sinners, the stock again being the same, and this is true, popular opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. At the outset clear thinking is difficult because of the different, often conflicting, meanings given to words. When a college senior defines animism as belief in the Father and Son, but not in the Holy Ghost, we smile. Our feeling is a bit changed when the head of an institution for children on being asked if he favored the indenture system, replied, no, that he preferred manual training. But what progress can be made when even physicians confuse congenital with inherited characters and do not see that the transmission of a disease like syphilis from parent to child does not mean that the child inherited the disease? In my judgment, we should limit the term inheritance to those physical characters which are determined, we know not how, in the germ cells. These germ cells unite and growth begins. All modifications, whether caused by some poison, say alcohol; by disease, say syphilis; by accident, by over or under nutrition, are technically known as acquired characters. Congenital, then, refers merely to the fact that certain characters exist at birth-it tells nothing as to their origin. Contrary, again, to popular judgment, biologists now almost unanimously believe that such acquired characters or modifications have no effects on germ cells later produced by the individual, and therefore produce no change in the next generation. Be it remembered that "acquired characters" do not refer to any of the features which may have come to the human race through inborn variations. Our language is at fault. When we say human race has acquired given characteristics we refer to inborn not to "acquired characters." Failure to make the distinction is a fruitful source of error for those not trained in biology. Space prohibits the discussion of this most important point. It must suffice to say that, while no one knows what causes the offspring to vary from the parents, we now know that certain things formerly held all-important are of no effect. At this very point a new difficulty arises. Heredity is often used in the sense of social heredity. We say a child inherits the customs, ideals, learning—the whole culture of the parent group. A little reflection makes clear that these are social inheritances, not physical-quite as important, but different. Nothing is more obvious than that the children of certain groups are better housed, better fed, better trained and educated than those of other groups. That, on the whole, these are to be leaders is evident. So quick are we to jump at conclusions, however, that the world-wide assumption has been that these children have a better line of physical descent. Is this a self-evident fact? May not their superiority be due to their environment, not to their heredity? Investigation, not argument, must furnish the answer. The question to be considered in this connection is whether the marriages of human beings have been consummated on physical or social grounds. If the evidence shows that social, political, financial considerations have determined the bulk of the matings, then there is little reason to believe that better strains have been created and perpetuated. That they could be no biologist doubts, but social customs prevent. Bagehot somewhere says: "Man, unlike the lower animals, has had to be his own domesticator." Man has found it worth while not merely to tame, but also to carefully |