Worcester, Massachusetts

THE following brief and provocative communication presents a view that is probably general enough to deserve discussion. Mr. Forbes is a business man who has for many years been interested in "positive" eugenics as evidenced by a brief article on this subject he contributed to the Journal in 1921. His question therefore is not that of the entirely casual layman. For these reasons Mr. Forbes' permission was obtained to send proof of his letter to several recognized leaders of eugenic thought in the United States, with an invitation to discuss briefly these expressed fears regarding the moribund condition of eugenics. As would be expected, replies for publication were not forthcoming from all those to whom this proof was sent, but so much of interest was contained in the comments received, that for once the Editor feels justified by the results in the course adopted. Obviously no endorsement of any or all of the somewhat conflicting views is implied in their publication.

It may be of interest to review in this connection the status of this Association with regard to the eugenics movement. The question of the policy that should be pursued has been discussed at many meetings of the Council of the Association. It has been the consensus of these discussions that the most useful purpose this organization could fill is to avoid the adoption of any definite and unequivocal "policy" with regard to eugenics. In the present state of knowledge and of popular opinion regarding the significance of genetic principles in their application to human affairs, there is great need for a source of accurate and unbiased information, not embarrassed by adherence to any particular "program." It has been the policy of the Council that we should avoid official "axes to grind" other than that all‐important "axe" ‐‐a demand for more knowledge, ‐‐ and the presentation of this knowledge in a form that will be intelligible to all who are genuinely interested in the subject. This attitude of "no axes" is carried by some members of the Council to the extent that we are prepared to give favorable consideration to analyses that might demonstrate fundamental unsoundness in present eugenic efforts. It is the conviction of the writer that the recognition of at present "unappreciated principles, that is, an "inventive approach" or a "mutation" of social ideas is urgently needed in the development of this subject.

In the past we have gladly opened the pages of the JOURNAL to discussions of eugenics. Perhaps Mr. Forbes' questions, and the answers that they have elicited, will inspire other contributions regarding eugenic theory or practice, ‐‐ some of them embodying the revolutionary changes suggested in the preceding paragraph. If the JOURNAL is privileged to present some Of the fundamental contributions to this vitally important and fascinatingly complicated subject, it can hardly serve a more useful purpose. ‐EDIT0R.

President of the American Eugenics Society, Director of the Eugenic Survey of Vermont

Mr. A. W. Forbes of Worcester, Massachusetts, has done eugenists a favor by his challenging letter. It is high time that some layman voiced the sentiment which he expresses because it is probably true, as he says, that it represents a good deal more than his own personal attitude.

The slight note of pessimism that one seems to read into his title and into one or two of his statements is not alarming. It is in accord with the temper of the day and will most certainly give place shortly to a more optimistic outlook. During such a period of world depression the layman cannot be expected to be very patient with any movement which is in the least vague or uncertain. This movement of eugenics is both. I shall attempt very briefly to defend the eugenics movement from condemnation on such grounds.

More mistakes are made by too much positiveness of action and too quick adoption of policies than by undue caution. A judicious combination of zeal and conservatism is immensely desirable in any such field as that of eugenics. It is, however, very important indeed for an organization or group of them to be called sharply to account occasionally if progress seems to lag.

Personally, my conviction is that for a while now it will be exceedingly important to make haste slowly, letting the research workers continue to lay stone upon stone in the foundation upon which the structure of eugenics may be much more firmly established than is possible today. Mr. Forbes speaks of "a more reliable foundation for eugenic theory," showing that he appreciates the importance of building it. "Since the original publication (by Professors Woods and Huntington), we have heard nothing." That is unfortunate but by no means the fault of the workers in eugenics. They have continued their efforts with much zeal and with greater attention to scientific exactness than characterized some of the earlier output.

Mr. Forbes' letter expresses in a very challenging way a common and pardonable attitude. The layman could scarcely be expected to realize what a prodigious body of material is being accumulated in the effort to throw new light on the intricate problems of human heredity. Mr. Forbes should not be impatient because of inaction on the part of eugenists. There is an immense amount of action, but it is less frequently and prominently written up in the newspapers. The public is being quietly but with great persistence made aware of the fundamental facts of eugenics. Many of the damaging and dysgenic beliefs of our ancestors are being cleared away and everywhere it is easy to see that a new tolerance is being generated. At this juncture such educational effort is immensely more important than any noisy propaganda.

The program of Eugenics began as a pretty definite thing in the minds of certain people. True, scarcely two of them had just the same program in mind but they knew just what they wanted and what they were convinced would bring about prompt and almost miraculous results. Then followed the "practical" period. Legislation in particular received a great deal of attention and this legislation, followed the path of least rsistance, was mostly to legalize sterilization. There were only a few states or individuals that bothered much with questions of birth control, marriage age, segregation of undesirables, and the various other plans for improving the individual, the family, the community, the state, the nation, the race. Now, constructive eugenics is on the ascendant.

Meanwhile, "positive eugenics" has taken on a more important aspect. Studies in Americanization, differential birth rate, selective mating and sundry means of making the family more effective, quantitatively and qualitatively, have been and are being investigated. The listings of publications that appear in Eugenical News and the JOURNAL OF HEREDITY offer the most convincing evidence that eugenics is by no means dead. Its activities are less spectacular than at first but the strength of the foundation that is being laid now more than justifies the caution and conservatism of the larger group of eugenists.

Furthermore, "Practical Eugenics" is not being neglected, particularly in the field of education. As evidence of this, see any state in which sterilization laws have been enacted within the last five years. The passage of each of these laws was only possible after a vigorous campaign of education. Also examine the character of the laws and observe the extent to which they are more sound and so promise greater likelihood of being kept on the statutes and of being actually administered than were the early laws.

Eugenics is indebted to Mr. Forbes for his challenge. The above defense of present programs should not be taken as an indication of the unwillingness of eugenists to be called upon to furnish the proofs that Mr. Forbes demands. It is well for us to be driven occasionally to take a coldblooded scientific account of stock, to examine our program, compare it with the demands of the day and then proceed to tear down, to rebuild, to add on until we have the very best possible working plan for our enormously important enterprise.