View allAll Photos Tagged ucl
University College London, Senate House 1932-38 Charles Holden. "Strangely semi-traditional, undecided modernism" (Pevsner). View from Cafe Deco, Store Street. Foreground cacophony of traffic lights and signs. Sketched on site with fountain pen.
1977 Dodge K850 with ERF Firefighter bodywork.
Supplied new to Norfolk Fire Brigade it was stationed in Norwich and then Terrington St Clement. Sold out of service in 1989.
Teaching spaces will be created and reconfigured on lower floors, and new offices will accommodate teaching staff on the upper floors.
UCL 160R - Fengate Farm - Dodge K1113/CFE water tender ladder - ex Norfolk Fire Service. Weeting Steam Rally on 21st July 2019
UCL 157R - Norfolk Fire Service - Dodge K1113/CFE water tender ladder. Weeting Steam Rally on 19th July 2003
Fake tilt shift of UCL Bloomsbury Campus and Wellcome Trust buildings
Lens blur done in Photoshop CS5 and the original image was taken from the top of the BT Tower
It is really a time to say goodbye to this library. We had been staying here for days and nights. What a place!
Yashica Mat 124G + Kodak Ektacolor Pro 160
State-of-the-art imaging at the UCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging captured detailed maps of the pigeon beak.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed the external soft tissues (purple) and micro-computed tomography (CT) exposed dense bony structures (yellow). (M. Lythgoe, J. Riegler www.ucl.ac.uk/cabi/).
With the recent developments in the Human Genome Mapping Project and the new technologies that are developing from it there is a renewal of concern about eugenic applications. Francis Galton (b1822, d1911), who developed the subject of eugenics, suggested that the ancient Greeks had contributed very little to social theories of eugenics. In fact the Greeks had a profound interest in methods of supplying their city states with the finest possible progeny. This paper therefore reviews the works of Plato (The Republic and Politics) and Aristotle (The Politics and The Athenian Constitution) which have a direct bearing on eugenic techniques and relates them to methods used in the present century.Abstract
With the recent developments in the Human Genome Mapping Project and the new technologies that are developing from it there is a renewal of concern about eugenic applications. Francis Galton (b1822, d1911), who developed the subject of eugenics, suggested that the ancient Greeks had contributed very little to social theories of eugenics. In fact the Greeks had a profound interest in methods of supplying their city states with the finest possible progeny. This paper therefore reviews the works of Plato (The Republic and Politics) and Aristotle (The Politics and The Athenian Constitution) which have a direct bearing on eugenic techniques and relates them to methods used in the present century.
(Journal of Medical Ethics 1998;24:263–267)
Keywords: Eugenics; ancient Greeks; Plato; Aristotle; contemporary methods
Introduction
Eugenics (Gk eu-good, well; Gk gen-genesis, creation), a term proposed by Francis Galton, was defined as "the science of improving the inherited stock, not only by judicious matings, but by all other influences ...."¹
With the recent developments in the Human Genome Mapping Project the scope for eugenics has enormously increased because of the development of a very powerful technology for the manipulation of DNA. A multitude of gene sequences and genetic markers are now becoming available to predict risks of developing such common conditions as cancer, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus and hypertension; and in some cases it is possible to treat such disorders by gene therapy (ie replacement of the LDL-receptor gene in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia).²
Gene manipulation of germ-line cells is currently in use for animal models of human disease and no doubt will soon become available for the supply of donor organs for purposes of human transplantation surgery.
A wider definition of eugenics might therefore be "the use of science applied to the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the human genome"; and this would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.³
This definition does not include any terms related to the acceptability or otherwise of the means to achieve these ends, ie whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.
A major problem for the future will be where to draw the fine line between state control and personal choice for the many genetic issues that will arise with the application of the new DNA technology. This is particularly so as some of the genetic issues related to multifactorial disease are complex and may go beyond the understanding of some citizens who may be involved in such decisions.
Galton's work on eugenics makes very little reference to Greek social theories of eugenics and current standard works on eugenics⁴ make no reference to the Greek contribution.
For example Galton states in a letter, that he had read "Plato's Republic and Laws for eugenic passages; but they don't amount to much beyond the purification of the city by sending off all the degenerates to form what is termed a colony".⁵
It is not clear where Galton obtained this idea of colonisation as a eugenic measure; it does not appear to occur anywhere in Plato's works.
In early ancient Greek history (from the eighth to sixth centuries BC) establishing colonies was a way of coping with population expansion and of establishing trading contacts overseas.
Perhaps Galton may have been recalling Herodotus, Book IV, where Polymnestus, a man of high repute in Thera, had a defective son with a speech impediment named Battus (meaning stammerer); and Battus was dispatched by the citizens with sanctions from the Delphic oracle to found a colony in Libya.⁶
However, Herodotus does not say anything explicitly to suggest that the disability was a motive for sending him to lead a colony.
On the other hand Plato's works do reveal a profound interest in eugenics as a means of supplying the city state with the finest possible progeny.
This was of vital significance for the future of the city, which needed to supply men for its army which was continually at war with other city states.
The purpose of this paper is to describe prevailing ancient Greek views on eugenic methods to improve the quality of their progeny.
Plato's Republic⁷
This work was probably written before 368 BC when the author was in his fourth to fifth decade.
It is a blueprint for the organisation of an ideal society and with regard to eugenics adopts the policy of ensuring "judicious matings".
Plato thought it vital to society that the correct arrangements should be made for such matings.
He proposed that marriage for the guardian classes (guardians were the premier class of Athenian citizens, selected by their natural capacities and attainments to govern the state) be abolished and that provision be made for men and women of the same natural capacities to mate.
He drew an analogy with the selective breeding of sporting dogs and horses in order to obtain the desired stock.
The members of the guardian classes should only be allowed to breed in their primes, for men, after reaching the age of 25 years, for women 20 years.
Inferior members of the guardian classes should be discouraged from reproducing.
Only the best of the offspring should be kept in the guardian class and the inferior children should be relegated to the civilian classes (farmers or craftsmen).
These were the general principles; and in practical terms they could be implemented by the institution of a marriage festival, bringing together suitable young people in the correct age band.
Sacrifices, poetry, songs and dance would set the atmosphere for young couples to "marry" and cohabit during the period of the festival for about one month, after which the marriage would be dissolved and the partners remain celibate until the next festival.
The number of marriages at each festival would be at the ruler's discretion, to keep the population numbers constant, taking into account losses caused by war or epidemics.
Plato was more afraid of a decline than a rise in the birth rate and considered that the civilian classes could breed without restriction so as to keep an average city state with 5,000 citizens (as stated in The Laws).
To prevent marriage of the inferior members of the guardian classes a lottery system would be set up but so rigged that young men acquitting themselves well in war and other duties would be given the first opportunities of having a marriage partner for the term of the festival to produce children whilst the inferior youth would draw lots which "by chance" would not procure a partner for them.
At the end of the festival the marriages would be dissolved but the superior youths would be able to draw by lot another (and different) partner at the next festival.
The newborn children were to be taken from their mothers and reared in special nurseries in a separate quarter of the city.
Family life was to be discouraged as it provided a distraction from the business of governing, of defending or extending the city state by conquest.
Any children born defective would be "hidden away" in some appropriate manner.
This may actually be a euphemism for infanticide.⁸
However neither infanticide nor exposure as practised in Sparta and other Greek cities was recommended by Plato for his republic.
Women should be allowed to bear children from the ages of 20–40 years, and men reproduce from 25–55 years, when the bodily and mental powers are at their best.
Unofficial unions which produced children would be considered as a civil (and divine) offence and appropriate punishments instituted.
Men should only have relations with women of a marriageable age if the rulers had paired them together.
Incestuous unions between parents and children were to be forbidden; but there were no sanctions against brother-sister unions.
Brother-sister marriages were not uncommon in Egypt and the Greeks had probably not noticed the increased frequency of defective children resulting from consanguineous marriages.
The main aim of brother-sister incest as practised by the royal families of Egypt was to keep the throne within the family.
It appears clear from portraits of the Ptolemies of Egypt, the most notorious case of such incest, that some members suffered from inherited endocrine disorders,⁹ but there is no evidence that this was connected by the ancients themselves with the practice of brother-sister incest.
However, if all the newborn Greek children were brought up communally in a crèche, real brothers and sisters would not perhaps know they were so related; especially as there would be so many different marriage pairs from each succeeding festival.
Finally, men and women of the guardian classes past the child-bearing age could form relationships that would fall outside the jurisdiction of the rulers.
Plato's Laws¹⁰
This is the last of Plato's dialogues, written in his eighth decade in about 350 BC, but it is highly likely that he was at work on The Laws for many years during intervals of writing other texts, since it is his longest work and it may well incorporate material for earlier projects at which he hints, but seems never to have completed.
It is a more practical treatment and extension of the political problems raised in The Republic. He attempts to frame a model constitution and legislation that might be adopted by a society of average Greeks marriage festivals, with a community of wives and children, to be impractical. Instead he would legislate for monogamous marriages with strict chastity outside of that. Provision for this should be initially made by arranging sports and dance festivals so the young people of the city could meet each other. If a man of 25 years or more finds a suitable partner he should submit his case to the curator of laws, and if the match is found suitable, should in all cases marry her before the age of 30–35 years. A girl could marry from the age of 16–20 years. With regard to fitness for marriage a man should primarily court a woman for the city's good and not just because she takes his fancy. The origin of the bride and her family should be carefully scrutinised. The wealth or poverty of the bride's family should not play a large part in his choice.
If any fit young men did not, or refused to marry, up to the age of 35 years they then should pay an annual fine of 100 drachmas if belonging to the wealthiest class; 70 drachmas if to the second; 60 if to the third and 30 drachmas if to the fourth class. The fines so collected would be dedicated to the Temple of Hera.
Married couples should make it their first concern to present the city with the best and finest progeny. They should therefore be under the supervision of a board of matrons, appointed by the magistrates, to superintend the conduct of the married couples. For example, expectant mothers should assemble daily for a minimum period of 20 minutes at the Temple of Ilithyia (a goddess identified with Artemis or Hera) to provide sacrifices and rites to the Goddess of Matrimony. Their period of supervision by the board should last ten years and the board would provide advice and guidance on all problems connected with childbirth (for example, if couples were infertile, or producing too many children). Infertile couples could have their marriages dissolved but the relatives of both parties were to have a voice in the terms of the separation. Finally, an official register of births and deaths should be kept and made easily accessible by the recording of its details on whitened walls. Such a record would be required for the proper observance of the laws fixing the ages for marriage, military service or qualifications for various official posts.
Regarding Plato's other political dialogues, The Statesman¹¹ deals with the different forms of government and the nature of political science but makes no reference to eugenics.
Aristotle's Politics¹²
Aristotle initially studied with Plato at the Academy from 367–348 BC, but then left to travel. He returned to Athens in 336 BC and founded the Lyceum. In his book Politics he first criticizes Plato's views and then proposes his own.
He thinks that the community of wives and children for the guardian class is impractical and if anything is better suited to the civilian classes. If the latter have wives and children in common they will be less closely united by bonds of affection and family ties and perhaps remain more obedient to the ruling elite and be less likely to rebel. Also, would mothers in the guardian class voluntarily give up their children to be reared in a communal nursery? If some of their inferior children are relegated to the lower classes and eventually find out their true parents, this may lead to quarrels and recriminations and perhaps would provide more a source of disorder in society.
He also criticises Plato's view that the birth rate should be left unrestricted for the lower classes. If this leads to over-population, the attendant evils of poverty, crime and revolution would most likely follow. In Aristotle's view the birth rate should be regulated even more stringently than was done in c 330 BC. He quotes in support of this idea that Phaedon of Corinth, an early legislator, recommended that land allotments for families and the number of citizens should be kept equal to one another, implying a tight regulation of the birth rate.
Raw material
Aristotle's own views agree in principle with Plato's that conditions should be managed to ensure the highest possible state of health for the city's newborn children. The quality and quantity of their population depends on this and is the first concern of the city state. The population is the raw material on which the statesman works.
Aristotle would therefore legislate for the following proposals.
Strict monogamous marriages should be instituted, with women marrying at about 18 years and men at 37 years, when he considers both sexes to be at their prime.
Pregnant women must take care of their bodies with regular exercise each day by walking to the Temple of Ilithyia to worship at the altar of the gods presiding over childbirth.
Expectant mothers should be given nourishing food and remain as tranquil as possible since the embryo derives its nature from the mother, rather as plants do from the soil in which they grow.
Laws should be introduced to oppose an unrestricted birth rate, but no children should suffer exposure just to limit the population.
If couples are having too many children abortion must be procured before the embryo has reached the stage of "sensitive life".
Infanticide should be practised for any children born with deformities.
(Page 266)
Other proposed ideal constitutions considered by Aristotle, ie those of Phaleas of Chalcedon or Hippodamus of Miletus appear to make no provisions for eugenics.
The actual constitution of Sparta appears to include eugenic measures but these were mainly directed to a single aspect, namely military prowess.¹³ Their practice of child exposure and infanticide was mainly aimed at developing a cadre of good soldiers but this led to a shortage of manpower which proved to be one of Sparta's major social weaknesses. A law had eventually to be passed to encourage population growth in which a father of three sons was exempt from military service and a father of four sons was exempt from all state-imposed obligations, including taxes.
The actual constitution of Crete had measures to regulate the birth rate by segregating women from men. However, Lycurgus, the supposed legislator for both Sparta and Crete, sanctioned sexual intimacy between males as a means of controlling reproductive rates, the morality of which Aristotle appears to question.
Commentary
It is of interest that neither Galton nor many contemporary commentators¹⁴ ¹⁵ appear to give credit to or even mention the Greek contribution to the subject of eugenics. In fact Galton's proposals for the development of the subject³ go very little further than the measures proposed by Plato except that there was almost no element of coercion in the former.
Galton's main proposals were:
Extensive family records should be kept and in competitive examinations for professional posts in, for example the civil service, extra marks should be awarded for "family merit". The family history as well as the personal history of the applicant should be taken into account;
Early marriages for women from "gifted" families should be encouraged by the award of financial endowments, analogous perhaps to the use of grants for higher education for promising young adults;
Rules of celibacy for gifted individuals (for example Fellows at the older universities) should be abolished;
The state should take some form of action (unspecified) against the procreation of the feeble-minded, the insane, and some classes of habitual criminals.
Plato's methods to improve the genetic constitution of the ruling elite class are far more original than those of Aristotle and are in accord with modern genetic theory.
Different choices of partners at serial marriage festivals amongst a selected elite of the population would be expected to lead to an optimal spread of abilities for their offspring.
He recommends systematic deception in the pursuit of these aims by rigging the lottery system for marriage partners, and in Book Three of The Republic he states that deception of citizens for the city's welfare is justified for political ends in the same way that doctors may conceal the truth from their patients for their own good, but patients should conceal nothing from their doctors (if they want a correct diagnosis).
In practice, of course, justifying a means for political ends can be at almost total variance with justification for the benefit of the citizen's welfare.
Aristotle criticised the social implications of a community of wives and children; but both Plato and Aristotle appear to have overlooked the possibility of brother-sister (or half brother-half sister) matings leading to the appearance of deleterious recessive characters that occur at high frequency in the human genome (c 20%).
Perhaps the adverse effects of consanguineous marriages had not been recognised by the Greeks or Egyptians, since brother-sister marriages were condoned.
Plato and Aristotle both recommended legislation of social methods aimed at promoting judicious matings amongst an elite class, methods that would be unacceptable today.
Contemporary genetics has more aimed to discourage injudicious matings in the population by methods that are equally questionable.
In the early half of this century state institutions introduced compulsory measures to improve the "inherited stock" of their society.
For example from 1930 onwards 27 states in the USA passed sterilisation laws to prevent various classes of people from having children.¹⁶ These included the insane, those suffering from epilepsy, and the feebleminded. In some states these laws were applied to habitual criminals and "moral perverts".
Most states did not enforce these laws, but in California compulsory sterilisations reached a total of 9,930 by 1935.
Other countries, including Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Norway and Sweden also passed sterilisation laws for similar categories of people, and between 1935 and 1976 about 60,000 young Swedish women deemed mentally defective or otherwise handicapped, making them incapable of looking after children, were sterilised.
The laws in Sweden remained on the statute books until 1976.¹⁷
Only in Germany have recent attempts been made to "breed" for an elite class.
The Lebensborn (Spring of Life) state programme of the Nazis established Lebensborn homes throughout Germany where SS men and suitable young Aryan women were encouraged to procreate.¹⁸
of the resettlement and extermination programmes.
In the USA between 1969–73 many states organised compulsory schemes to screen for sickle cell heterozygosity which occurs primarily amongst the black population. Carriers, who are entirely healthy, had problems with obtaining marriage certification, employment and access to life insurance. For example, carriers of the sickle cell trait were excluded from positions in the Air Force academy involved with flight training and from flight personnel posts. In the Department of the Navy employees were screened and heterozygote cases excluded from airborne, ranger or flight crew training. Such procedures could be interpreted as racist and a means of discriminating against the black population by preventing their promotion to officer class. This could also have an indirect eugenic effect although there is no demographic evidence that reproductive rates were affected by this policy.¹⁹
More recently insurance companies in the UK (1997) required the declaration of previous genetic tests for susceptibility to such diseases as cancer, heart disease and premature dementias; premiums are adjusted according to the health risks involved.²⁰ Since life insurance is frequently tied to mortgages this would tend to have an effect of discouraging (by financial pressures) individuals possessing an adverse genetic constitution from starting families and therefore could act as a covert eugenic measure.
Currently the trend for eugenics has been very much away from social coercion by various state institutions to providing more education and freedom for citizens to make their own genetic and reproductive choices. For example, mothers can choose to have a disabled child with trisomy 21 even though the state may eventually have to provide for the child's long term care. If there were a genetic "cure" for trisomy 21 the mother could be held responsible for injury to her child for withholding it. If a pregnant mother can take steps to cure a disability affecting her fetus she should do so, or otherwise she could be held responsible for deliberately injuring her child.²¹ The only "cure" at present for trisomy 21 is termination of pregnancy and perhaps a state body should intervene in such cases if the mother is clearly unable to provide economically for the long term care of her handicapped child. However, each particular case of state intervention has to be scrutinised very carefully in view of the gross abuse of such measures in the present century.
Acknowledgements
I am greatly indebted to Professor RW Sharples, Department of Greek and Latin, University College London, for providing two critical reviews of different versions of the manuscript regarding the accuracy of the Greek contents; and to Professor DAG Galton for helpful criticism.
David J Galton MD, FRCP, is Professor of Human Metabolism in the Department of Metabolism and Genetics, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1377679/?page=1
UCL eugenics legacy – storytelling with art
Staff and students in the UCL community are engaging with the institution’s eugenics legacy in positive and creative ways. Discover their stories paired with our striking artwork.
On this page: Introducing the campaign | Story 1 - Change or bust | Meet the artist
Other content: Story 2 - From the collections: problematic histories | Story 3 - Anti-eugenics: from pandemic to polarised world | Story 4 - Confronting legacies with object-based learning | Story 5 - From the ground up – the role of students in anti-eugenics work
Introducing the campaign
In 2021, UCL issued a public apology for its role in the development, propagation and legitimisation of eugenics.The Eugenics Legacy Education Project (ELEP) is is a three-year project, ending in 2025, covering the education-related recommendations from the Eugenics Inquiry. We aim to help facilitate positive change in UCL through a number of projects, including looking at how 'difficult knowledge' is taught.
Our campaign aims to showcase stories of inspiring UCL students and colleagues by presenting their efforts to address the eugenics legacy with an original piece of artwork drawn by our ELEP artist Weihong ‘Clover’ Tang. Clover is a student at UCL, although interestingly not in art. The thoughtful illustrations are her reaction to each story. In spring 2025, we are launching five stories. For some of the stories, additional beautiful illustrations are provided by Naomi Chung, a UCL History of Art undergraduate student.This work presents an uchronian reinterpretation of Botticelli's *Birth of Venus*, in which the iconic image becomes the foundation for an entirely new artistic vision. Rather than faithfully reproducing a Renaissance masterpiece, the composition reconfigures its visual language to question the very nature of artistic tradition. This transformation reflects what Hans Belting and Christopher Wood have described as the historical shift from iconic reference to the assertion of individual artistic vision and personal style. The legacy of the past is no longer merely preserved; it is reimagined.
At the heart of this transformation lies the concept of **inganno**—the Italian notion of artistic illusion or deception. Much like Michelangelo's forged *Sleeping Cupid*, which was deliberately fashioned to resemble an ancient sculpture by Praxiteles, this image plays upon the viewer's expectations. At first glance, one recognizes Botticelli's celebrated Venus; upon closer inspection, however, every familiar element has undergone a profound metamorphosis. Venus no longer emerges from a natural shell but rises from a biomorphic technological structure. Her body fuses organic anatomy with mechanical refinement, while the surrounding radiance replaces the sea foam of the Renaissance painting with an almost cosmic energy. Here deception is not an act of falsification but a creative strategy that transforms imitation into invention.
In 2019, Stephanie Dickinson started a professional services role in the Statistical Science department at UCL. An artist by training, Stephanie generally found that she could earn money by doing jobs that other people didn't want to do. So, when she was asked to pause her timetabling work for a moment and tidy up a messy library with a heap of books, papers and a bust in the corner, events moved in a direction she wasn’t expecting with profound results.
UCL’s eugenics legacy is well documented. Sir Francis Galton, who never worked at UCL, coined the phrase “eugenics”, and did much to popularise the racist pseudo-science. When Galton died in 1911, he left money to the University of London to establish a Chair in Eugenics, with the recommendation that Karl Pearson should be the first holder of the chair. Pearson was duly appointed and founded the Department of Applied Statistics at UCL.
Sifting through papers relating to eugenics in a room formally named after Karl Pearson, Stephanie thought back to secondary school and lessons on eugenics through a particularly diligent headteacher. She was shocked that eugenics had found a home at UCL and was eager to learn more, especially why there was a bust of Pearson in the corner of this well used room.
But before she could address the issue there came a series of events including the Covid-19 pandemic, The Black Lives Matter movement, and for Stephanie, the challenge of being a new mother. But even with offices locked up and remote working the “new normal”, things were changing at UCL. On 7 January 2021, UCL issued a formal public apology for its history and legacy of eugenics and amongst several actions de-named the Pearson building. The bust of Pearson in 1-19 Torrington Place remained though.
I like to see the project as admin as art and painting by email (Stephanie Dickinson)
When she returned from maternity leave, Stephanie was fired up, a frustration partly caused by a serious illness associated with the birth of her child. Addressing the Pearson bust would be her first action to try and make sense of this frustration. Worries over whether this was a good career move aside, she took the plunge and went to see her department head. She was so pleased when he was not only supportive, but gave her the time and space to figure out what the right action should be and lead the efforts to address the legacy of the bust.
My department could not have been more supportive (Stephanie Dickinson)
There was lots to consider. If objects linked to difficult histories are removed, is it denying that there was ever an issue, and what is the implication for learning? Stephanie was not in favour of removing the bust, she was drawn to placing a highly visible and lasting educational plaque next to the Pearson bust. A plaque that links to further information on the UCL website and that gives a balanced history. Drawing on expertise within her department, the text was finalised and the plaque should help educate future generations of UCL staff and students.
Interestingly Stephanie sees her action as “admin as art”. Her philosophy is to correct and move on. Art and social justice are not just key parts of her personality but her career too. She has since tackled other projects related to UCL’s eugenics legacy, working directly with the Eugenics Legacy Education Project (ELEP). She would like to explore themes raised by this project in other ways as she continues her career. The bust had been a presence attached to the wall and it took an administrator to tackle the legacy head on and affect change. Will this inspire more of us to question what is around us? Stephanie hopes so.
Meet the artist
Hello! My name is Weihong Tang, also known as Clover. I used to be a communication designer, and I am currently studying for a Master’s degree in Education and Technology at UCL (2024/25). My interests focus on the application of tools and media production in educational settings. I am passionate about discovering innovative ways to inspire learners and enhance learning experiences.
www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/ucl-eugenics-legacy-story...
This approach belongs to a long artistic tradition in which copying was never a passive act. Marcantonio Raimondi's engravings after Dürer's woodcuts, the virtuoso reinterpretations by the Wierix family, and the circulation of Michelangelo's drawings for Vittoria Colonna and Tommaso Cavalieri all demonstrate that replication could become a vehicle for innovation, intellectual exchange, and artistic prestige. Likewise, this work treats Botticelli not as an untouchable model but as a prototype whose visual memory is activated within a contemporary visual language.
Yet this uchronia extends beyond the history of art into the realm of spiritual symbolism. The two lateral figures evoke an initiatory landscape in which visible beauty conceals a deeper reality. On the left, a dense organic and vegetal world suggests the primordial forces of creation; on the right, a veiled feminine figure recalls the motif of hidden wisdom and revelation. Between these two realms stands a transfigured Venus, acting as a mediator between the material and the spiritual, between nature and transcendence.
This interpretation resonates with the traditions of the **Fedeli d'Amore**. In both Dante's poetry and the mystical writings of Rūzbihān Baqlī Shīrāzī, beauty is never an end in itself but a sign leading toward higher knowledge. Visible forms function as veils through which divine reality may be contemplated. Within this framework, Venus is no longer simply the classical goddess of love but becomes an image of theophany—a manifestation in which beauty, love, and illumination converge.
The painting therefore brings together multiple historical horizons: the classical world of Venus, the Renaissance of Botticelli and Michelangelo, the medieval mysticism of Dante and the *Fedeli d'Amore*, and the technological imagination of the contemporary era. These different temporalities coexist within a single visual space, creating an authentic uchronia in which history is not rewritten but reconfigured as an alternative genealogy of images.
The "hidden signs" do not reside in a fixed esoteric code but in the very operation of the image itself. The **inganno** lies in persuading the viewer that this is merely another variation on Botticelli's masterpiece, while the work in fact proposes a meditation on the memory of forms, the creative power of artistic quotation, and the capacity of images to reveal new meanings beneath familiar appearances. As in the mystical traditions of Dante and the Persian masters of love, the visible becomes the threshold of the invisible, where imitation is transformed into creation and the image itself becomes an instrument of revelation.
The shift of imagery from iconic reference to assertion of artistic vision and personal style (cf. Hans Belting and Christopher Wood) generated a tension between reception of venerated visual tradition and artistic transformation. Ancient models became sources of emulation, especially for Michelangelo, whose forgery of an ancient Sleeping Cupid by Praxiteles (1496) is the subject of editor Sally Anne Hickson’s study. Here successful deception became a badge of originality and virtuoso contemporary authenticity. Of course, deceptive copies of prints are well known to HNA members, not only the infamous engravings in Venice by Marcantonio Raimondi after Dürer woodcuts, but also virtuoso reworkings, such as the Wierix engravings after Dürer prototypes, often in the original orientation and even with the same detail executed in miniature. Yet copying and distribution of certain celebrated prototypes, especially the chalk drawings by Michelangelo for both Vittoria Colonna and Tomasso Cavaliere, held special value for the collectors and friendship circles who were proud possessors of those derivative works, some of them in luxury media, as Maria Ruvoldt has demonstrated. Not to mention the burgeoning period interest in engraved reproductions of works in other media by professional printmakers, a topic to which I personally devoted an exhibition two decades ago (Larry Silver and Timothy Riggs, Graven Images, 1993; to be supplemented by various later studies, such as Rebecca Zorach and Elizabeth Rodini, Paper Museums, 2005). As usual when the artworks are chiefly Italian, prints are ignored, despite the importance of Cornelis Cort and the Carracci in this tradition.
hnanews.org/hnar/reviews/inganno-art-deception-imitation-...
There is not doubt that there exist both similarities and contrasts in the history and teachings of Christian and Islamic mysticism. One of the most fascinating periods in the history of the two religions and the mystical schools that appeared in them is the 12th and 13th centuries in which so many great Christians and Muslims mystics lived. In the 13th Century there appeared in Italy the well-known secret organization with its mystical and esoteric teachings called the Fedeli d’amore to which Dante belonged. This organization was not only devoted to esoteric matters but also had a political and social dimension. Nevertheless, mystical and esoteric teachings were at the heart of its concerns and it is history identified with hidden esoteric ideas and doctrines. A century earlier there appeared within the Sufi tradition in Persia a particular school of love mysticism that the famous French scholar of Islamic thought, Henry Corbin, has called “the Fedeli d’amore of Persia”. Among the latter groups Rūzbihān Baqlī Shīrāzī is one of the most celebrated and is considered as one of the most significant figures in the history of Sufism as a whole. As for Europe, among the Western Fedeli d’amore it is of course the figure of Dante that stands out above all others. In our present study we have analyzed the ‘Abhar al-‘āshinqīn of Rūzbihān Baqlī on the one hand and the works of Dante, especially the Divine Comedy and La Vita Nuova, on the other and have then compared and contrasted the thought and style of these two colossal figures. Our goal has been to study and to reveal both the similarities and differences of the manifestation and treatment of Love on different levels in the teachings the Christian and Islamic traditions as crystallized in and associated with the Fedeli d’amore of Italy and of Persia. Some attention has also been paid to the influence of Islamic thought upon the medieval West especially in the domain of symbolism, and our study may therefore said to be both morphological and historical.
scholarspace.library.gwu.edu/concern/gw_etds/m039k4971?lo...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1930s exhibit by the Eugenics Society. Some of the signs read "Healthy and Unhealthy Families", "Heredity as the Basis of Efficiency", and "Marry Wisely".
This article is part of a series on
Eugenics
Historical trajectory
Pre-war academic proponents
Post-war academic remnants
Pamphlets and manifestos
Organizations
Related
image History of science portal
vte
Eugenics[a] is a largely discredited set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of those considered inferior, often through forced sterilization, or promoting that of those considered superior.[5]
The contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] which spread to most European countries (e.g., Sweden and Germany), and many other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Australia.[7]
Historically, the idea of eugenics has been used to argue for a broad array of practices ranging from prenatal care for mothers deemed genetically desirable to the forced sterilisation and murder of those deemed unfit.[5] To population geneticists, the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without altering allele frequencies; for example, British-Indian scientist J. B. S. Haldane wrote in 1940 that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent."[8] Debate as to what qualifies as eugenics continues today.[9]
A progressive social movement promoting eugenics had originated in the 19th century,[10][11][12] with diverse support, but by the mid 20th century the term was closely associated with scientific racism and authoritarian coercion. With modern medical genetics, genetic testing and counselling have become common, and new or liberal eugenics rejects coercive programmes in favour of individual parental choice.[13]
Common distinctions
Lester Frank Ward wrote the early paper: "Eugenics, Euthenics and Eudemics", making yet further distinctions.[14]
Eugenic programmes included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilisation of people deemed unfit for reproduction.[5][15][16]: 104–155
Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged, for example, the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilisation, egg transplants, and cloning.[17] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilisation or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally undesirable. This includes abortions, sterilisation, and other methods of family planning.[17] Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women deemed by the state to be superior.[18]
As opposed to "euthenics"
See also: Nature-nurture debate
Ellen Swallow Richards
Julia Clifford Lathrop
Ellen Swallow Richards (left), the first female student and instructor at MIT, was one of the first to use the term, while Julia Clifford Lathrop (right) continued to promote it in the form of an interdisciplinary academic program later to be mostly absorbed into the field of home economics.
Euthenics (/juːˈθɛnɪks/) is the study of the improvement of human functioning and well-being by the improvement of living conditions.[19] "Improvement" is conducted by altering external factors such as education and the controllable environments, including environmentalism, education regarding employment, home economics, sanitation, and housing, as well as the prevention and removal of contagious disease and parasites.
In a New York Times article dated May 23, 1926, Rose Field notes of the description, "the simplest [is] efficient living".[20] It is also described as "a right to environment",[21] commonly as dual to a "right of birth" that correspondingly falls under the purview of eugenics.[22]
In contrast to eugenics, euthenics does not intentionally attempt to alter the composition of the human gene pool. However, improvements to one's quality of life, such as eradication of diseases or access to proper nutrition, can potentially have indirect effects on the genetics of the population.[23]
The influential historian of education Abraham Flexner questions its scientific value in stating:
[T]he "science" is artificially pieced together of bits of mental hygiene, child guidance, nutrition, speech development and correction, family problems, wealth consumption, food preparation, household technology, and horticulture. A nursery school and a school for little children are also included. The institute is actually justified in an official publication by the profound question of a girl student who is reported as asking, "What is the connection of Shakespeare with having a baby?" The Vassar Institute of Euthenics bridges this gap![24]
Eugenicist Charles Benedict Davenport noted in his article "Euthenics and Eugenics", reprinted in Popular Science Monthly:
Thus the two schools of euthenics and eugenics stand opposed, each viewing the other unkindly. Against eugenics it is urged that it is a fatalistic doctrine and deprives life of the stimulus toward effort. Against euthenics the other side urges that it demands an endless amount of money to patch up conditions in the vain effort to get greater efficiency. Which of the two doctrines is true?
The thoughtful mind must concede that, as is so often the case where doctrines are opposed, each view is partial, incomplete and really false. The truth does not exactly lie between the doctrines; it comprehends them both.
[...] [I]n the generations to come, the teachings and practice of euthenics [...] [may] yield greater result because of the previous practice of the principles of eugenics.[25]
Along similar lines, Edward L. Thorndike, a psychologist and early intelligence researcher, argued some two years later for an understanding that better integrates eugenic study:
The more rational the race becomes, the better roads, ships, tools, machines, foods, medicines and the like it will produce to aid itself, though it will need them less. The more sagacious and just and humane the original nature that is bred into man, the better schools, laws, churches, traditions and customs it will fortify itself by. There is no so certain and economical a way to improve man's environment as to improve his nature.[26]
Historical eugenics
Main article: History of eugenics
Ancient and medieval origins
See also: Sparta § Birth and death
Giuseppe Diotti's The selection of the infant Spartans (1840)
In ancient Sparta, according to Plutarch (fl. 50 to 120 CE), the council of elders (the Gerousia) inspected every proper citizen's child and determined whether or not the child was fit to live.[27] A child deemed unfit was allegedly thrown into a chasm.[28][29] Plutarch's account is the sole historical source for the Spartan practice of infanticide motivated by eugenics.[30] While ancient Greeks practiced infanticide, no contemporary sources support Plutarch's claims of infanticide on eugenic grounds.[31] In 2007, the tradition of dumping infants near Mount Taygete was called into question due to a lack of physical evidence: anthropologist Theodoros Pitsios' research of the site found only bodies ranging in age from 18 to 35 years.[32][33]
Plato's political philosophy included the belief that the state should cautiously monitor and control human reproduction through selective breeding.[34][35]
According to Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 120), a Roman of the Imperial Period, the Germanic tribes of his day killed any member of their community they deemed cowardly, un-warlike or "stained with abominable vices", usually by drowning them in swamps.[36][37] Modern historians regard Tacitus' ethnographic writing as unreliable in such details.[38][39]
Academic origins
See also: Galton Laboratory and Eugenics Record Office
Francis Galton (1822–1911) was a British polymath who coined the term "eugenics"
The term eugenics and its modern field of study were first formulated by Francis Galton in 1883,[40][41][42][b] directly drawing on the recent work delineating natural selection by his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[44][45][46][c] He published his observations and conclusions chiefly in his influential book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. Galton himself defined it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".[48] The first to systematically apply Darwinism theory to human relations, Galton believed that various desirable human qualities were also hereditary ones, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.[49]
Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from various sources.[50] Organisations were formed to win public support for and to sway opinion towards responsible eugenic values in parenthood, including the British Eugenics Education Society of 1907 and the American Eugenics Society of 1921. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals.[51] In 1909, the Anglican clergymen William Inge and James Peile both wrote for the Eugenics Education Society. Inge was an invited speaker at the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which was also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Patrick Joseph Hayes.[51]
Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented by state-level legislators in the early 1900s.[52] Eugenic policies also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.[53] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilising certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,[54] Brazil,[55] Canada,[56] Japan and Sweden.
Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed eugenics as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.[57] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilisation of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics").[58]
In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organised through the International Federation of Eugenics Organisations.[59] Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics,[60] the Cold Spring Harbor Carnegie Institution for Experimental Evolution,[61] and the Eugenics Record Office.[62] Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilisation laws.[63] In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness.[64] Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races.[65][66]
Many leading British politicians subscribed to the theories of eugenics. Winston Churchill supported the British Eugenics Society and was an honorary vice president for the organisation. Churchill believed that eugenics could solve "race deterioration" and reduce crime and poverty.[47][67][68]
As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century, when it was practiced around the world and promoted by governments, institutions, and influential individuals. Many countries enacted[69] various eugenics policies, including: genetic screenings, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill), compulsory sterilisation, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, ultimately culminating in genocide. By 2014, gene selection (rather than "people selection") was made possible through advances in genome editing,[70] leading to what is sometimes called new eugenics, also known as "neo-eugenics", "consumer eugenics", or "liberal eugenics"; which focuses on individual freedom and allegedly pulls away from racism, sexism or a focus on intelligence.[71]
Early opposition
Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,[72] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland.[d] Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils,[74] and Franz Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly)[75] were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement.
Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.[76] Other biologists who were themselves eugenicists, such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, however, also expressed scepticism in the belief that sterilisation of "defectives" (i.e. a purely negative eugenics) would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.[77]
Among institutions, the Catholic Church opposes sterilisation for eugenic purposes.[78] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalise voluntary sterilisation were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[79] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii.[51] In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilisation laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."[80]
The eugenicists' political successes in Germany and Scandinavia were not at all matched in such countries as Poland and Czechoslovakia, even though measures had been proposed there, largely because of the Catholic Church's moderating influence.[81]
Eugenic feminism
This section is an excerpt from Eugenic feminism.edit
Marie Stopes in her laboratory, 1904
Eugenic feminism was a current of the women's suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics.[82] Originally coined by the Lebanese-British physician and vocal eugenicist Caleb Saleeby,[83][84][85] the term has since been applied to summarize views held by prominent feminists of Great Britain and the United States. Some early suffragettes in Canada, especially a group known as The Famous Five, also pushed for various eugenic policies.
Eugenic feminists argued that if women were provided with more rights and equality, the deteriorating characteristics of a given race could be averted.
North American eugenics
American eugenicists generally pursued more public-facing work and accordingly became widely known for their racism in particular. Along these lines, they were often harshly criticised by their British counterparts.[86]
This section is an excerpt from Eugenics in the United States.edit
While its American practice was ostensibly about improving genetic quality, it has been argued that eugenics was more about preserving the position of the dominant groups in the population. Scholarly research has determined that people who found themselves targets of the eugenics movement were those who were seen as unfit for society—the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, and specific communities of color—and a disproportionate number of those who fell victim to eugenicists' sterilization initiatives were women who were identified as African American, Asian American, or Native American.[87][88] As a result, the United States' eugenics movement is now generally associated with racist and nativist elements, as the movement was to some extent a reaction to demographic and population changes, as well as concerns over the economy and social well-being, rather than scientific genetics.[89][88]
In Mexico
This section is an excerpt from Eugenics in Mexico.edit
Following the Mexican Revolution, the eugenics movement gained prominence in Mexico. Seeking to change the genetic make-up of the country's population, proponents of eugenics in Mexico focused primarily on rebuilding the population, creating healthy citizens, and ameliorating the effects of perceived social ills such as alcoholism, prostitution, and venereal diseases. Mexican eugenics, at its height in the 1930s, influenced the state's health, education, and welfare policies.[90]
Mexican elites adopted eugenic thinking and raised it under the banner of “the Great Mexican family” (Spanish: la gran familia mexicana).[91]
Unlike in other countries, the eugenics movements in Latin America were largely founded on the idea of neo-Lamarckian eugenics.[92] Neo-Lamarckian eugenics stated that the outside effects experienced by an organism, throughout its lifetime, changed its genetics, permanently, allowing the organism to pass acquired traits onto its offspring.[93] In the Neo-Lamarckian genetic framework, activities, such as prostitution and alcoholism, could result in the degeneration of future generations, amplifying fears about the effects of certain social ills. However, the supposed genetic malleability also offered hope, to certain Latin American eugenicists, as social reform would have the ability to transform the population, more permanently.[92]
Nazism and the decline of eugenics
See also: Nazi eugenics, Racial hygiene, Life unworthy of life, and Scientific racism
Schloss Hartheim, a former centre for Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 campaign
Part of a series on
Nazism
The reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler had praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf in 1925 and emulated eugenic legislation for the sterilisation of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States once he took power.[94] Some common early 20th century eugenics methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families. This included racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany), the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, and homosexuals as "degenerate" or "unfit". This led to segregation, institutionalisation, sterilisation, and mass murder.[95] The Nazi policy of identifying German citizens deemed unfit and then systematically murdering them with poison gas, referred to as the Aktion T4 campaign, paved the way for the Holocaust.[96][97][98]
"All practices aimed at eugenics, any use of the human body or any of its parts for financial gain, and human cloning shall be prohibited."
— Hungarian Constitution[99]
By the end of World War II, many eugenics laws were abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany.[100] H. G. Wells, who had called for "the sterilisation of failures" in 1904,[101] stated in his 1940 book The Rights of Man: Or What Are We Fighting For? that among the human rights, which he believed should be available to all people, was "a prohibition on mutilation, sterilisation, torture, and any bodily punishment".[102] After World War II, the practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a national, ethnical, racial or religious] group" fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[103] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims "the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".[104]
In Singapore
Main article: Population control in Singapore § Demographic transition and the Graduate Mothers Scheme
Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, actively promoted eugenics as late as 1983.[105] In 1984, Singapore began providing financial incentives to highly educated women to encourage them to have more children. For this purpose was introduced the "Graduate Mother Scheme" that incentivised graduate women to get married as much as the rest of their populace.[106] The incentives were extremely unpopular and regarded as eugenic, and were seen as discriminatory towards Singapore's non-Chinese ethnic population. In 1985, the incentives were partly abandoned as ineffective, while the government matchmaking agency, the Social Development Network, remains active.[107][108][109]
Modern eugenics
See also: New eugenics
Liberal eugenics, also called new eugenics, aims to make genetic interventions morally acceptable by rejecting coercive state programmes and relying on parental choice.[110][13] Bioethicist Nicholas Agar, who coined the term, argues that the state should intervene only to forbid interventions that excessively limit a child’s ability to shape their own future.[111] Unlike "authoritarian" or "old" eugenics, liberal eugenics draws on modern scientific knowledge of genomics to enable informed choices aimed at improving well-being.[13] Julien Savulescu further argues that some eugenic practices, like prenatal screening for Down syndrome, are already widely practiced, without being labelled "eugenics", as they are seen as enhancing freedom rather than restricting it.[112]
UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster argued that modern genetics is a "back door to eugenics".[113] This view was shared by then-White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Programme at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products".[114] The United Nations' International Bioethics Committee also noted that while human genetic engineering should not be confused with the 20th century eugenics movements, it nonetheless challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatisation for those who do not want or cannot afford the technology.[115]
In 2025, geneticist Peter Visscher published a paper in Nature, arguing genome editing of human embryos and germ cells may become feasible in the 21st century, and raising ethical considerations in the context of previous eugenics movements.[116][117] A response argued that human embryo genetic editing is "unsafe and unproven".[118] Nature also published an editorial, stating: "The fear that polygenic gene editing could be used for eugenics looms large among them, and is, in part, why no country currently allows genome editing in a human embryo, even for single variants".[117]
Contested scientific status
In the decades after World War II, the term "eugenics" had taken on a negative connotation and as a result, the use of it became increasingly unpopular within the scientific community. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy which spawned them, as when Eugenics Quarterly was renamed Social Biology in 1969.
One general concern is that the reduced genetic diversity that may be a feature of long-term, species-wide eugenics plans[119] could eventually result in inbreeding depression,[119] increased spread of infectious disease,[120][121][better source needed] and decreased resilience to changes in the environment.[122][better source needed]
Arguments for scientific validity
See also: Selective breeding, De novo domestication, List of domesticated animals, List of domesticated plants, and Self-domestication
In his original lecture "Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics", Karl Pearson claimed that everything concerning eugenics fell into the field of medicine.[123] Anthropologist Aleš Hrdlička said in 1918 that "[t]he growing science of eugenics will essentially become applied anthropology."[124] The economist John Maynard Keynes was a lifelong proponent of eugenics and described it as a branch of sociology.[125][126]
In a 2006 newspaper article, Richard Dawkins said that discussion regarding eugenics was inhibited by the shadow of Nazi misuse, to the extent that some scientists would not admit that breeding humans for certain abilities is at all possible. He believes that it is not physically different from breeding domestic animals for traits such as speed or herding skill. Dawkins felt that enough time had elapsed to at least ask just what the ethical differences were between breeding for ability versus training athletes or forcing children to take music lessons, though he could think of persuasive reasons to draw the distinction.[127]
Objections to scientific validity
Amanda Caleb, Professor of Medical Humanities at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, says "Eugenic laws and policies are now understood as part of a specious devotion to a pseudoscience that actively dehumanises to support political agendas and not true science or medicine."[128]
The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based on genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. He demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) with white eyes from a family with red eyes,[47]: 336–337 demonstrating that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance.[47]: 336–337 [clarification needed] Morgan criticised the view that traits such as intelligence or criminality were hereditary, because these traits were subjective.[129][e]
Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits, an example being phenylketonuria, which is a human disease that affects multiple systems but is caused by one gene defect...
State-of-the-art imaging at the UCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging has disproved a widely held theory that pigeons' remarkable homing skills are due to iron-rich magnetic cells in their beaks. This video captures the detailed map of the magnetic-free pigeon's beak that scientists used in the research.
The mystery as to how pigeons' sense the Earth's magnetic field remains unanswered.
Courtesy of Dr Mark Lythgoe: www.ucl.ac.uk/cabi
Konica Hexar RF + Leica M9 + Leica Noctilux-M 50/1 (E58) + Ilford Delta 400 Black/White Film / Develop + Scan @ West End Camera London (Push +1) (Low Quality Scan)
The grand portico of University College London, Gower Street, Bloomsbury, London, UK.
The University College London was founded in 1826 by a committee of liberal thinkers amongst whom James Mill, Jeremy Bentham and Henry Brougham were prominent. It was intended especially for those debarred from Oxford and Cambridge by reason of non-jurancy ( not being confirmed members of The Church of England ), and therefore was of immediate benefit to able Scots, Quakers, Jews and Catholics and eventually to those of any faith worldwide.
Alumni include Alexander Graham Bell, Gandhi, Jonathon Ross and Ricky Gervais.
UCL, as it is usually known, although technically part of The University of London, is a vast university in its own right, with an endowment of £90 million pounds and 21,620 students of whom 9,650 are postgraduates. There are 3,800 teaching faculty many of whom are active in research. In 2004 UCL was permitted to grant its own degrees alongside University of London ones.
UCL is a member of the “G5” British universities recognised by The Times as of “international standing” ( the others being Oxford, Cambridge, The London School of Economics and The Imperial College of Science and Technology ). UCL accounts for 40% of the entire UK university research expenditure, and occupies much of the inner London suburb of Bloomsbury, which, however, it shares with The British Museum, a number of big hotels, and numerous smaller colleges.
It boasts 19 Nobel Laureates and 3 Fields Medal recipients ( mathematicians ). Currently, 35 Fellows of the Royal Society ( of scientists ) are employed.
The palatial Main Building illustrated ( called prosaically The Wilkins Building ) was built between 1825 and 1832 to a design by William Wilkins. It is an imposing if confined domed ashlar building with a decastyle composite pronaos.