2
Editorial
Staff Editors-in-Chief Alana
Ju
‘10 Christina
Grassi
‘10
Associate
Editors
Letter
from
the
Editors Dear
readers,
We
a re
so
proud
to
bring
you
the
i naugural
i ssue
of
Synthesis,
a
new
undergraduate
journal
of
the
history
of
s cience.
The
last
few
months
have
been
a
chaotic
whirlwind
of
discovery
for
us
and
the
rest
of
the
Synthesis
team.
We
have
started
a
new
official undergraduate
organization
at
Harvard,
reached out
to
students
studying
the
history
of
science,
medicine,
and
technology
in
departments
across
the country,
and
put
together
the
only
national
peer-‐ reviewed
undergraduate
journal
in
the
history
of
science.
Reading
fascinating
work
by
undergraduates from
Cornell,
University
of
Pennsylvania,
UCLA,
Barnard,
Princeton,
Yale,
and
Harvard
has
been
an
incredible
privilege,
and
we
regret
only
being
able
to publish
a
h andful
o f
them.
We
h ope
that
Synthesis
will
go
o n
for
c ountless
future
issues,
but
this
will
require
the
c ontinuous
support
o f
faculty
m embers,
s tudents, and
generous
sponsors.
If
you
are
interested
in
helping
Synthesis
in
any
way,
through
sponsorship,
editorial
work,
or
future
submissions,
please
contact
us
at
harvardsynthesis@gmail.com.
We
hope
you
enjoy
reading
o ur
f irst
issue! Sincerely, Alana
J u
a nd
Christina
Grassi Co-‐Editors-‐in-‐Chief
o f
Synthesis
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
Brian
Na
‘09 Connemara
Doran
‘09 Kwee
Boon
Brandon
Seah
‘11
Staff
Editors
Grace
Kim
‘11 Katherine
Mims
‘09 Marianne
Eagan
‘10 Mariah
Peebles
‘09 Michael
Polino
‘11 Helen
Yang
‘12 Clare
Moran
‘11 Byran
Dai
‘11 Cory
Johnson
‘11 Brittany
Benjamin
‘09 Debbie
Lin
‘11 Whitney
Adair
‘11
Assistant
Editors Jay
Miller
‘09 Kirsten
Slungaard
‘10 Urvesh
Shelat
’09
Interviewers Helen
Yang
‘12 Karl
Kmiecik
‘10 Maggie
Jack
‘09
Design
Board
Whitney
Adair
‘11 Michael
Polino
‘11 Alana
Ju
‘10 Yoke-‐Mun
Sung
‘11 Brittany
Benjamin
‘09
Advisers
Prof.
Anne
Harrington Prof.
Steven
Shapin Allie
Belser Beth
Yale Shoshanna
Tell
‘10
3
Table of Contents “Edvard
Munch
and
the
Gothic
Tubercular”
by
Lakshmi
Sivarajan,
University
of
Pennsylvania
‘09.......................................................4-‐10 “The
Church
and
Its
Discontents:
The
Holy
See’s
Evolving
Perception
of
the
Copernican
Threat”
by
Matthew
Bozik,
Yale
‘10..........................................................................................................11-‐16 INTERVIEW:
Owen
Gingerich
by
Karl
Kmiecik,
Harvard
‘10......................................................................................................17-‐18 “Eugenics
and
the
Supreme
Court
1900-1945:
An
Internalist
Approach”
by
Fauzia
Shaikh,
Harvard
‘10....................................................................................................19-‐26 “The
Controversy
Surrounding
Galileo’s
Lunar
Observations”
by
Steve
Benay,
Cornell
‘11..........................................................................................................27-‐33 INTERVIEW:
Andrew
Berry
by
Maggie
Jack,
Harvard
‘09.......................................................................................................34-‐35 Dz ϐ ǣ Ǯ ǯ dz
by
Brian
Na,
Harvard
‘09.............................................................................................................36-‐46 INTERVIEW:
Richard
Lewontin
by
Helen
Yang,
Harvard
‘12........................................................................................................47-‐48 “Chlorpromazine:
An
International
Revolution?”
by
Wendy
Ying,
Harvard
‘10......................................................................................................49-‐52 “Use
or
Abuse?
Political
Applications
of
and
Moral
Responsibility
for
Darwin
and
Haber’s
Science”
by
Katherine
Mims,
Harvard
‘09..............................................................................................53-‐60
Sponsors The
Harvard
Department
of
the
History
of
Science The
Harvard
Undergraduate
Council If
you
are
interested
in
sponsoring
future
issues
of
Synthesis,
please
us
at
harvardsynthesis@gmail.com.
If
you
would
like
to
order
additional
copies
of
Synthesis,
they
are
available
from
an
online
publisher
at
http://magcloud.com/ browse/Issue/17334.
4
Edvard
 
 Munch
 
 and
 
 the
 
  Gothic
 
 Tubercular By Lakshmi Sivarajan, University of Pennsylvania ‘09
Introduction
analyzed
 
  as
 
  examples
 
  of
 
  impressionist
 
  techniques.8
 
  This
 
  paper
 
 will
 
 show
 
 that
 
 Munch’s
 
 work
 
 employs
 
 a
 
 Gothic
 
 (not
 
 
 
  Night
 
 sweats,
 
 chills,
 
 fever,
 
 weight
 
 loss,
 
 pain
 
 while
 
  Romantic)
 
 conceptualization
 
 of
 
 tuberculosis. breathing
 
  and
 
  coughing
 
  up
 
  blood
 
  –
 
  these
 
  are
 
  some
 
  of
 
  the
 
 symptoms
 
 of
 
 active
 
 tuberculosis.1
 
 
 
 Tuberculosis
 
 (TB)
 
  Methods ‹• …‘Â?Â?‘Â?Ž› ‹†‡Â?–‹Ď?‹‡† ™‹–Š „ƒ…–‡”‹ƒŽ ‹Â?ˆ‡…–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ In
 
 the
 
 analysis
 
 of
 
 these
 
 paintings,
 
 other
 
 works
 
 by
 
  lungs,
 
  but
 
  the
 
  disease
 
  can
 
  infect
 
  any
 
  number
 
  of
 
  organs
 
 
 
  and
 
  tissues.1
 
  While
 
  this
 
  infection
 
  reached
 
  epidemic
 
  Edvard
 
  Munch
 
  will
 
  be
 
  explored,
 
  including
 
  those
 
  which
 
  proportions
 
  during
 
  the
 
  eighteenth
 
  and
 
  nineteenth
 
  display
 
 his
 
 use
 
 of
 
 the
 
 vampire
 
 and
 
 spirit
 
 motifs.
 
 As
 
 these
 
  centuries,
 
  infection
 
  today
 
  is
 
  believed
 
  by
 
  most
 
  to
 
  be
 
  a
 
  and
 
  other
 
  themes
 
  compose
 
  an
 
  important
 
  part
 
  of
 
  the
 
  product
 
  of
 
  co-Ââ€?infection
 
  with
 
  HIV/AIDS.
 
  However,
 
  the
 
  ‘–Š‹… –”ƒ†‹–‹‘Â?ÇĄ –Š‡ ’‘’—Žƒ” Ď?‹…–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ Â†ÂƒÂ›ÇĄ ‘–Š‹… Centers
 
  for
 
  Disease
 
  Control
 
  estimates
 
  that
 
  only
 
  nine
 
  conventions
 
 and
 
 philosophy
 
 will
 
 also
 
 be
 
 explored.
 
 In
 
 the
 
  percent
 
 of
 
 current
 
 tuberculosis
 
 cases
 
 are
 
 in
 
 patients
 
 also
 
  analysis
 
 of
 
 the
 
 technical
 
 elements
 
 of
 
 the
 
 works,
 
 this
 
 paper
 
  relies
 
 heavily
 
 upon
 
 the
 
 model
 
 proposed
 
 by
 
 David
 
 Loshak.
 
  infected
 
 with
 
 HIV/AIDS.2
 
  While
 
  more
 
  than
 
  ninety
 
  percent
 
  of
 
  tuberculosis
 
  In
 
 this
 
 model,
 
 perspective,
 
 dimensionality,
 
 curvilinearity,
 
  patients
 
  do
 
  not
 
  have
 
  HIV,
 
  the
 
  co-Ââ€?infected
 
  population
 
  is
 
  distortion
 
 from
 
 reality,
 
 coloration
 
 and
 
 narrative
 
 structure
 
  are
 
  particularly
 
 important
 
 due
 
 to
 
 the
 
 emergence
 
 of
 
 multi-Ââ€?drug
 
  of
 
 the
 
 work
 
 (i.e.
 
 depiction
 
 of
 
 the
 
 progression
 
 of
 
 time)
 
  9 resistant
 
 strains
 
 of
 
 the
 
 disease.2
 
 The
 
 idea
 
 of
 
 a
 
 re-Ââ€?emerging
 
  used
 
  to
 
  assess
 
  the
 
  meaning
 
  of
 
  Munch’s
 
  pieces
 
  .
 
  Use
 
  of
 
  fatal
 
 infection
 
 is
 
 alarming,
 
 as
 
 the
 
 case
 
 of
 
 Andrew
 
 Speaker
 
  these
 
  objective
 
  characteristics
 
  further
 
  allows
 
  for
 
  a
 
  fair
 
  shows
 
  us.3
 
  In
 
  2007,
 
  Mr.
 
  Speaker
 
  boarded
 
  international
 
  comparison
 
 between
 
 the
 
 various
 
 works. Ď?Ž‹‰Š– ™Š‹Ž‡ ‹Â?ˆ‡…–‡† ™‹–Š –—„‡”…—Ž‘•‹•Ǥ3
 
  Speaker’s
 
  Results ’”‡•‡Â?…‡ ‘Â? ƒÂ? ‹Â?–‡”Â?ƒ–‹‘Â?ƒŽ Ď?Ž‹‰Š– ™ƒ• ƒ ’—„Ž‹… Š‡ƒŽ–Š Edvard
 
  Munch,
 
  born
 
  in
 
  1863,
 
  was
 
  a
 
  Norwegian
 
  nightmare
 
  because
 
  “prolonged
 
  exposure
 
  to
 
  an
 
  infected
 
 
 
  3 artist
 
  whose
 
  most
 
  famous
 
  piece
 
  is
 
  The
 
  Scream.
 
  Munch’s
 
  person�
 
 can
 
 result
 
 in
 
 TB
 
 transmission.
 
  It
 
  has
 
  been
 
  argued4
 
  that
 
  eighteenth-Ââ€?
 
  and
 
  work
 
  is
 
  invaluable
 
  in
 
  that
 
  it
 
  catalogues
 
  the
 
  artistic
 
  nineteenth-Ââ€?century
 
  tuberculosis
 
  was
 
  not
 
  terrifying
 
  and
 
  movement
 
 from
 
 impressionism
 
 to
 
 expressionism.10
 
 The
 
  feared,
 
 but
 
 fashionable
 
 and
 
 Romantic.
 
 The
 
 White
 
 Plague,
 
 as
 
  four
 
 pieces
 
 examined
 
 in
 
 this
 
 section
 
 represent
 
 a
 
 seminal
 
  it
 
 was
 
 called,
 
 killed
 
 1.25
 
 percent
 
 of
 
 the
 
 English
 
 population
 
  shift
 
 in
 
 his
 
 interpretation
 
 of
 
 death
 
 and
 
 disease
 
 as
 
 well
 
 as
 
  annually
 
 by
 
 1780.5
 
 Yet
 
 infection
 
 with
 
 tuberculosis
 
 was
 
 seen
 
  in
 
 his
 
 artistic
 
 methodology. as
 
  desirable
 
  largely
 
  by
 
  the
 
  wealthy.6
 
  Numerous
 
  scholars
 
  have
 
  examined
 
  how
 
  the
 
  notion
 
  of
 
  the
 
  ‘sexy
 
  tubercular’
 
  Spring,
 
 oil
 
 on
 
 canvas
 
 (1889): came
 
  into
 
  existence.
 
  It
 
  has
 
  been
 
  agreed
 
  that
 
  the
 
  works
 
  and
 
  sayings
 
  of
 
  artists
 
  like
 
  Byron,
 
  Shelley,
 
  Keats
 
 and
 
 Thoreau
 
 helped
 
 popularize
 
 this
 
 idea.
 
  Susan
 
 Sontag
 
 famously
 
 argued
 
 that
 
 tuberculosis
 
  was
 
  not
 
  only
 
  seen
 
  as
 
  sexy
 
  but
 
  also
 
  as
 
  spiritual,
 
  creative
 
 and
 
 interesting.7
 
  This
 
  paper
 
  seeks
 
  to
 
  examine
 
  the
 
  validity
 
  of
 
  these
 
  claims
 
  within
 
  the
 
  context
 
  of
 
  contemporary
 
  art.
 
  A
 
  series
 
  of
 
  four
 
  tuberculosis
 
  related
 
 paintings
 
 by
 
 the
 
 Norwegian
 
 artist
 
 Edvard
 
  Munch
 
  will
 
  be
 
  the
 
  subject
 
  of
 
  this
 
  analysis.
 
  Two
 
  paintings,
 
  Death
 
  in
 
  the
 
  Sickroom
 
  and
 
  By
 
  the
 
  Deathbed,
 
  will
 
  be
 
  examined
 
  as
 
  examples
 
  of
 
  expressionist
 
  techniques.
 
  The
 
  remaining
 
  two
 
  works:
 
  Spring
 
  and
 
  The
 
  Sick
 
  Child
 
  will
 
  be
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
5
Spring
depicts
two
women
seated
beside
a
window.
The
tubercular
(on
the
right)
is
seated
in
a
rocking
chair
with
a
pillow
propped
behind
her
head
while
her
companion
is
next
to
her
on
a
stool,
knitting.
The
perspective
is
directly
parallel;
the
viewer
is
in
the
same
plane
as
the
subjects
of
the
picture.
As
in
a
portrait
ǡ ϐ Ǥ is
highly
structured.
There
is
a
clear
eyeline
created
by
three
parallel
lines:
the
juncture
between
the
ground
and
the
wall,
the
top
of
the
armoire
and
the
surface
of
the
table
behind
the
women.
The
highly
structured
nature
of
the
background
lends
realism
and
thus
believability.
The
two
women
are
seated
in
a
very
natural
way.
In
candid
paintings,
the
subjects
typically
face
the
viewer
at
an
angle
of
either
one-‐quarter
or
three-‐quarters.
In
this
piece,
the
companion
is
facing
away
from
the
viewer,
exposing
only
one-‐quarter
of
her
face,
while
the
patient
is
facing
the
viewer,
exposing
three-‐quarters
of
her
face.
This
natural
positioning
exudes
a
relaxed,
calm
atmosphere.
ϐ Ǥ by
Munch’s
use
of
light
effects.
Dimensionality
is
a
product
of
light
and
shadow
contrasts.
For
instance,
the
patient’s
forehead
is
contoured
by
the
bright
spot
in
the
center
of
her
forehead
and
also
by
the
shadow
over
her
eyes.
A
light
source
placed
at
a
high
angle
would
cast
this
particular
shadow.
In
this
instance,
the
light
source
is
the
sun
which
enters
the
room
through
the
window,
casting
more
light
on
the
right
side
of
the
patient’s
face
than
on
the
left.
The
companion’s
shoulder
is
highlighted
by
the
same
sunbeam,
while
her
back
remains
shadowed.
Using
sunlight
as
the
source
of
light
in
a
painting
suggests
activity,
life
and
movement.
Similarly,
it
is
a
critical
structural
component
of
impressionistic
works
of
art.
To
create
these
particular
light
effects,
small,
meticulous
brush
strokes
must
be
used
in
order
to
show
the
incremental
loss
of
light
over
a
particular
distance.
ϐ Ǥ Ambient
light
allows
the
artist
to
use
any
number
of
distortions
in
color
or
shape.
But
sunlight
suggests
reality
and
the
artist
is
therefore
limited
to
a
certain
palette.
The
two
women
have
beige
skin
tones
and
the
room
is
colored
with
earthy
greens,
reds
and
browns
as
though
to
capture
a
woodsy
atmosphere
within
the
room.
The
light
source
on
the
patient’s
face
brightens
her
skin
lending
a
sort
of
ethereal
quality
to
the
scene.
She
appears
peaceful,
almost
angelic.
The
curtains
are
bent
inward
in
a
bubbled
manner,
indicating
a
breeze
has
just
passed.
Wind
similarly
adds
a
spiritual
component
to
the
piece
as
it
suggests
an
unseen
force,
perhaps
God.
For
the
most
part,
Spring
portrays
TB
just
as
Sontag
does
–
as
beautiful,
spiritual
and
painless
for
the
patient.11
The
only
unnatural
characteristic
about
the
patient
are
her
very
pale
hands.
The
sickly
pallor
of
her
hands
is
highlighted
by
the
contrast
to
the
red
handkerchief
she
holds.
Red
is
ϐ Ǥ hands
are
the
only
reminder
of
her
illness.
While
Spring
romanticizes
tuberculosis
infection,
Munch’s
other
paintings
explore
the
disease
in
a
much
harsher
light.
The
Sick
Child,
oil
on
canvas
(1896):
This
painting
is
quite
similar
to
Spring
in
its
structural
qualities.
In
fact,
it
portrays
the
same
subjects.
The
patient
is
Munch’s
sister
Sophie
who
died
of
tuberculosis
and
the
woman
seated
beside
her
is
most
likely
a
caretaker
or
governess.12
Munch’s
mother
died
of
tuberculosis
when
he
was
a
child,
a
fact
which
seems
to
ϐ Dead
Mother
and
Child.
The
Sick
Child,
unlike
Spring,
is
a
highly
emotional
piece,
which
is
interesting
because
Spring
is
the
earlier
of
the
two
pieces.
In
fact,
The
Sick
Child
shares
a
variety
of
characteristics
with
Munch’s
later,
highly
expressionistic,
almost
surrealist
works. In
the
painting,
the
patient
is
in
bed,
covered
by
a
blanket
up
to
her
waist.
One
hand
rests
upon
the
blanket
while
the
other
is
held
by
her
companion.
The
companion
is
seated
on
the
right
side
of
the
bed
facing
down,
as
if
she
Ǥ ϐ centrally
located.
However,
in
this
painting,
they
are
much
closer
to
the
viewer
as
compared
to
Spring.
There
is
no
differentiation
between
background
and
foreground.
This
is
typically
the
case
for
portraits
as
opposed
to
candid
paintings.
Once
again,
horizontal
lines
lend
stability
and
structure
to
the
piece
by
creating
an
obvious
eyeline.
The
horizontal
lines
are
created
by
the
top
edge
of
the
pillow
6 and
 
 the
 
 two
 
 folds
 
 made
 
 by
 
 the
 
 blanket
 
 on
 
 the
 
 bed.
 
  In
 
 The
 
 Sick
 
 Child,
 
 the
 
 patient’s
 
 face
 
 and
 
 hands
 
 are
 
  pale,
 
  unlike
 
  her
 
  counterpart’s
 
  whose
 
  hands
 
  and
 
  face
 
  are
 
  blushed
 
  red
 
  with
 
  life.
 
  Her
 
  skin
 
  is
 
  a
 
  light
 
  yellowish-Ââ€?beige
 
  color.
 
  A
 
  closer
 
  examination
 
  reveals
 
  that
 
  her
 
  face
 
  seems
 
  to
 
 be
 
 present
 
 twice:
 
 once
 
 clearly
 
 and
 
 once
 
 faintly
 
 upon
 
  the
 
 surface
 
 of
 
 the
 
 pillow.
 
 It
 
 is
 
 as
 
 though
 
 light
 
 is
 
 actually
 
  emanating
 
  from
 
  her
 
  face
 
  outward
 
  into
 
  the
 
  room.
 
  The
 
  yellowish
 
  beam
 
  on
 
  the
 
  wall
 
  in
 
  front
 
  of
 
  her
 
  is
 
  similarly
 
  a
 
  result
 
 of
 
 her
 
 “glow.�
 
 While
 
 the
 
 patient
 
 appears
 
 somewhat
 
  Romantic
 
 and
 
 angelic,
 
 there
 
 is
 
 a
 
 dark
 
 undercurrent
 
 of
 
 the
 
  symptoms
 
 and
 
 effects
 
 of
 
 tuberculosis
 
 on
 
 a
 
 household.
 
  The
 
  positioning
 
  of
 
  the
 
  characters
 
  is
 
  one
 
  major
 
  difference
 
  between
 
  this
 
  painting
 
  and
 
  Spring.
 
 The
 
 patient’s
 
 face
 
 is
 
 portrayed
 
  ĥ ƒ •‡˜‡”‡ ’”‘Ď?‹Ž‡Ǥ Š‹• •‡”˜‡• –‘ †”ƒ™ the
 
  viewer’s
 
  attention
 
  to
 
  her
 
  face.
 
  Unlike
 
  Munch’s
 
  later
 
  expressionist
 
  pieces,
 
  the
 
  patient’s
 
  face
 
  is
 
  highly
 
  detailed
 
  and
 
  each
 
  feature
 
  is
 
  carefully
 
  outlined.
 
  Portraying
 
  the
 
  patient
 
  ‹Â? ’”‘Ď?‹Ž‡ ’”‘†—…‡• –Š‡ •‡…‘Â?†ƒ”› effect
 
  of
 
  displaying
 
  the
 
  symptoms
 
  of
 
  tuberculosis.
 
  In
 
  Spring,
 
  the
 
  patient’s
 
  hair
 
 is
 
 pulled
 
 back
 
 in
 
 a
 
 bun
 
 precisely
 
  as
 
  her
 
  companion’s
 
  is.
 
  In
 
  The
 
  Sick
 
  Child,
 
  however,
 
  the
 
  patient’s
 
  hair
 
  is
 
  loose.
 
  It
 
  is
 
  matted
 
  against
 
  her
 
  head
 
  and
 
 the
 
 side
 
 of
 
 her
 
 face.
 
 This
 
 suggests
 
  a
 
  dampness
 
  or
 
  clamminess.
 
  She
 
  appears
 
 to
 
 be
 
 experiencing
 
 fever
 
 and/ or
 
 night
 
 sweats.
 
 Here
 
 tuberculosis
 
 is
 
 as
 
  important
 
 a
 
 subject
 
 as
 
 the
 
 two
 
 women
 
  are.
 
  In
 
  Spring,
 
  however,
 
  the
 
  patient
 
  does
 
  not
 
  appear
 
  to
 
  be
 
  experiencing
 
  any
 
 symptoms
 
 from
 
 her
 
 illness. The
 
  two
 
  women’s
 
  heads
 
  are
 
  placed
 
  next
 
  to
 
  each
 
  other,
 
  but
 
  the
 
  companion’s
 
  body
 
  is
 
  obscured
 
  by
 
  the
 
  corner
 
  of
 
  the
 
  bed.
 
  On
 
  the
 
  surface
 
  of
 
  the
 
  bed,
 
  there
 
  is
 
  one
 
  deep,
 
  diagonal
 
  fold
 
  which
 
 runs
 
  from
 
  the
 
  top
 
  of
 
  the
 
  sheet
 
  to
 
  the
 
  corner
 
  of
 
  the
 
  bed.
 
  This
 
  serves
 
  to
 
  complete
 
  the
 
  abstract
 
  heart
 
  created
 
  by
 
  the
 
  two
 
  women’s
 
  bodies.
 
  This
 
  heart
 
  softens
 
  the
 
  harsh
 
  and
 
  dark
 
  color
 
  scheme
 
  of
 
  –Š‡ ”‘‘Â?Ǥ Š‡ ”‘‘Â? ‹• Ď?‹ŽŽ‡† ™‹–Š †ƒ”Â? „Ž—‡•ǥ „”‘™Â?• and
 
 grays,
 
 unlike
 
 the
 
 woodsy
 
 atmosphere
 
 of
 
 Spring.
 
 This
 
  shift
 
  in
 
  palette
 
  from
 
  natural
 
  light
 
  and
 
  quasi-Ââ€?pastoral
 
  coloration
 
 to
 
 the
 
 use
 
 of
 
 shadows
 
 and
 
 a
 
 muddled
 
 bluish
 
  color
 
 scheme
 
 acts
 
 as
 
 a
 
 harbinger
 
 of
 
 Munch’s
 
 shift
 
 toward
 
  expressionism
 
 and
 
 his
 
 future
 
 focus
 
 upon
 
 the
 
 roles
 
 of
 
 grief
 
  and
 
 suffering. Further
 
  still,
 
  the
 
  two
 
  women
 
  are
 
  not
 
  exposed
 
  to
 
  an
 
 external
 
 source
 
 of
 
 light.
 
 The
 
 lack
 
 of
 
 an
 
 natural
 
 
 
 light
 
  source
 
  removes
 
  the
 
  sense
 
  of
 
  growth,
 
  life,
 
  or
 
  rebirth
 
  that
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
were
 
  present
 
  in
 
  Spring.
 
  The
 
  companion
 
  appears
 
  to
 
  be
 
  crying
 
 as
 
 if
 
 prematurely
 
 grieving.
 
 There
 
 is
 
 little
 
 indication
 
  of
 
 any
 
 movement
 
 within
 
 this
 
 scene
 
 as
 
 opposed
 
 to
 
 Spring.
 
  The
 
 implication
 
 is
 
 that
 
 grief
 
 precedes
 
 death
 
 and
 
 acts
 
 to
 
  enclose
 
  or
 
  quarantine
 
 families
 
  and
 
  patients.
 
 The
 
  deeply
 
  emotional
 
  nature
 
  of
 
  this
 
  piece
 
  contradicts
 
  the
 
  idea
 
  of
 
  the
 
  painless
 
  death13
 
  and
 
  introduces
 
  the
 
  dual
 
  nature
 
  of
 
  TB.
 
  Munch’s
 
  later
 
  expressionist
 
  pieces
 
  focus
 
  on
 
  this
 
  dual
 
  nature
 
  within
 
  the
 
  context
 
  of
 
  contemporary
 
  Gothic
 
  Ď?‹…–‹‘Â?Ǥ
Death
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Sickroom,
 
 oil
 
 on
 
  canvas
 
 (1895):
 
 
 
  This
 
  painting
 
  and
 
  By
 
  the
 
  Deathbed
 
  (to
 
  be
 
  †‹•…—••‡† ÂŽÂƒÂ–Â‡Â”ČŒ …ƒÂ? „‡ …Žƒ••‹Ď?‹‡† ĥ ‡š’”‡••‹‘Â?‹•– ™‘”Â?• of
 
 art
 
 based
 
 on
 
 their
 
 coloration,
 
 brush
 
 strokes,
 
 structure
 
  ƒÂ?† †‹Â?‡Â?•‹‘Â?ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ • ‘•ŠƒÂ? ÂƒÂ”Â‰Â—Â‡Â•ÇĄ Dz–Š‡ Ď?Žƒ––‡Â?‹Â?‰ of
 
  forms
 
  and
 
  spaces
 
  in
 
  to
 
  two-Ââ€?dimensional
 
  patterns
 
  [is
 
  used]‌to
 
  portray
 
  subjective
 
  concepts
 
  instead
 
  of
 
  objective
 
  percepts.�14
 
  The
 
  Sick
 
  Child
 
  is
 
  consistent
 
  with
 
  this
 
 argument
 
 in
 
 that
 
 the
 
 patient’s
 
 face
 
 is
 
 shown
 
 in
 
 severe
 
  ’”‘Ď?‹Ž‡ǥ ™Š‹…Š ‹• ƒ –™‘nj†‹Â?‡Â?•‹‘Â?ƒŽ ”‡’”‡•‡Â?–ƒ–‹‘Â?Ǣ likewise,
 
  the
 
  companion’s
 
  head
 
  is
 
  obscured.
 
  The
 
  patient
 
  ‹• ‹†‡Â?–‹Ď?‹‡† „› –—„‡”…—Ž‘•‹• ƒÂ?† ‹–• •›Â?’–‘Â?•ǥ ™Š‹Ž‡ the
 
  companion
 
  is
 
  characterized
 
  by
 
  her
 
  grief.
 
  This
 
  use
 
  of
 
  two-Ââ€?dimensionality
 
  to
 
  connote
 
  ideas
 
  or
 
  metaphors
 
  is
 
  •‹‰Â?‹Ď?‹…ƒÂ?–Ž› …Ž‡ƒ”‡” ‹Â? Death
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Sickroom.
 
  The
 
  structure
 
  of
 
  Death
 
  in
 
  the
 
  Sickroom
 
  is
 
  particularly
 
  unnerving.
 
  Three
 
  characters
 
  stand
 
  in
 
  the
 
 
7 extreme
foreground,
one
staring
directly
at
the
viewer.
The
remaining
characters
are
in
the
extreme
background.
The
positioning
of
the
subjects
as
a
V
effectively
extends
the
sickroom
to
include
the
viewer.
This
is
an
unusual
technique
which
serves
to
add
confusion
to
the
piece.
This
confusion
is
heightened
by
the
absence
of
structural
elements.
There
is
a
separation
between
the
door
and
the
wall
on
the
left
wall
of
the
room,
but
none
between
the
left
wall
and
the
rear
one.
The
room
appears
ǡ ϐ Ǥ the
impression
of
a
spinning
or
moving
background.
The
perspective
of
the
piece
is
established
by
the
paneling
of
ϐ Ǥ element
is
disturbed
by
the
characters
in
the
foreground
and
by
the
bed
frame
in
the
background.
ϐ Ǧ ϐ ǡ the
portraiture
style
displayed
in
Munch’s
impressionist
works.
All
of
the
characters,
except
for
the
woman
facing
the
viewer,
lack
detailed
eyes,
noses
and
mouths.
The
ϐ one
amorphous
mass
as
opposed
to
distinct
shapes.
The
woman
facing
the
viewer
looks
like
a
caricature
of
a
human.
Her
face
is
frightening
with
its
ghastly
white
coloration,
sunken
eyes
and
nostrils
without
a
nose.
In
this
piece
the
patient
is
obscured.
Is
the
patient
the
woman
seated
in
the
chair
or
has
she
already
died
in
the
bed?
The
title
of
the
piece
implies
the
death
has
already
occurred.
This
is
a
critical
difference
from
both
Spring
and
The
Sick
Child.
If
the
death
has
recently
occurred,
the
patient
is
still
in
the
bed,
but
the
body
and
face
of
the
patient
are
obscured
by
the
characters
in
the
foreground
as
well
as
the
footboard
of
the
bed.
The
effect
created
by
death
is
vastly
different
from
that
created
by
illness,
since
the
subject
of
this
painting
is
grief,
not
tuberculosis,
and
certainly
not
any
particular
individual.
This
piece,
like
the
two
previously
discussed,
is
oil
on
canvas
medium.
Why,
then,
does
it
appear
so
drastically
different?
The
style
of
painting
is
the
critical
difference
here.
In
both
Spring
and
The
Sick
Child,
Munch
ϐ ǡ ǡ placed
close
together
in
order
to
give
the
impression
of
light
fading
and
shadows
appearing,
as
is
characteristic
of
impressionist
technique.
There
is
no
light
source
in
Death
in
the
Sickroom;
furthermore,
there
are
no
gradations
of
light
either;
hence
the
characters
as
well
as
the
objects
in
the
painting
appear
two-‐dimensional.
The
brush
ϐ ǡ the
emergence
of
an
expressionist
method.
The
colors
ϐ pieces,
but
are
distinct
blocks
of
space.
For
instance,
the
foremost
woman’s
dress
is
a
single
shade
of
gray
while
her
hair
is
similarly
only
one
shade
of
auburn.
The
colors
are
also
muddled
at
times,
causing
the
subjects
to
blend
into
their
environment.
For
example,
the
foremost
woman’s
face
is
smeared
near
the
edge,
causing
it
to
ϐ Ǥ merging
must
be
created
on
purpose
in
a
heavy
medium
such
as
oil
painting;
only
in
a
light
medium
such
as
chalk
could
this
type
of
blending
occur
accidentally.
Munch
is
commenting
on
how
grief
is
a
consuming
emotion
that
ϐ Ǥ
By
the
Deathbed,
oil
on
canvas
(1895):
This
painting,
like
the
three
previously
discussed,
is
also
an
oil
on
canvas
painting.
It
was
painted
in
the
same
era,
yet
it
is
the
most
explicitly
expressionist
piece.
Distortions
from
reality
are
alarming
and
nightmarish.
The
scene
is
haunting,
even
hellish
in
its
portrayal.
The
title
of
the
piece,
By
the
Deathbed,
unlike
Death
in
the
Sickroom,
suggests
the
proximity
of
death.
Death
is
happening
at
this
very
moment
in
this
painting.
In
Death
in
the
Sickroom,
on
the
other
hand,
death
has
happened
and
grief
has
begun
to
set
in.
8
This
momentary
difference
is
important
in
ȋ Ȁ ϐ ǡ Ȁ ǡ Ȁ Ȍ understanding
the
distortions
in
the
subjects’
faces.
roles,
so
too
do
the
characters:
they
act
simultaneously
as
Three
of
the
faces
are
bright
white.
The
woman
nearest
mourners
and
angels/demons
of
death.
The
moment
of
to
the
viewer
is
particularly
disturbing
because
her
death
is
the
focal
point
of
the
piece.
This
is
a
prototypically
face
appears
skull-‐like:
her
cheeks
are
sallow;
she
lacks
Gothic
choice
and
it
yields
the
expected
results:
the
lips;
her
eyes
are
gaping
holes
painted
in
red
and
black
viewer
is
both
repulsed
and
curious.
After
all,
death
is
Ǥ ϐ Ǧ terrifying
but
also
mysterious. dimensional
and
shrouded
in
shadows.
Drawing
from
Discussion Loshak,
it
is
clear
that
these
skull-‐like
characters
are
15 meant
to
function
as
memento
mori
for
the
viewer.
The
Gothic
literature
movement
began
with
the
The
body
of
the
tubercular
functions
as
their
memento
publication
of
Matthew
Lewis’
The
Monk
in
1796
and
mori
in
return.
This
is
supported
by
the
fact
that
each
continued
well
into
the
late
nineteenth
century
as
the
ϐ novel
became
established
as
an
accepted
form
of
writing.
is
smeared
over
it.
In
other
words,
Munch
is
showing
The
Gothic
genre
became
wildly
popular
with
the
ϐ Ǥ publication
of
Ann
Radcliffe’s
Mysteries
of
Udolpho
and
It
is
a
modernist
way
of
portraying
a
classical
notion
of
The
Italian
as
well
as
Jane
Austen’s
Northanger
Abbey.
mortality. Other
notable
nineteenth-‐century
Gothic
authors
include
This
red,
white
and
black
color
scheme
is
not
Edgar
Allen
Poe,
Nathaniel
Hawthorne,
and
Bram
Stoker.
unique
to
Munch’s
works.
These
are
the
colors
which
typify
ϐ ϐ Gothic
literature.
Clark
Lawlor
argues
that
consumption
coming
into
our
consciousness.17
(or
displaying
symptoms
of
TB)
In
the
case
of
Mary
Shelley
and
and
vampirism
share
obvious
“This
red,
white
and
black
color
Frankenstein,
it
was
man’s
hubris
similarities.
In
particular,
scheme
is
not
unique
to
Munch’s
in
creating
life
with
technology.
For
tubercular
paleness,
“blood-‐ Bram
Stoker
and
Dracula,
it
was
spitting”
and
wasting
away
works.
These
are
the
colors
which
falling
into
the
fascination
with
could
also
be
associated
with
typify
Gothic
literature.
Clark
past
generations
and
patriarchy.
vampires
and
their
victims.16
Lawlor
argues
that
consumption
The
Gothic
serves
to
shock
us
with
The
vampiric
occurs
when
the
its
focus
on
death,
disease,
and
monstrous,
the
unimaginable
(or
displaying
symptoms
of
TB)
violence;
but
the
Gothic
also
feeds
enters
daily
life.
For
Munch,
and
vampirism
share
obvious
our
fancy
with
this
subject
matter.
the
death
of
his
sister
Sophie
similarities.
In
particular,
It
makes
us
curious
of
death
(The
was
monstrous.
Munch
later
tubercular
paleness,
“blood- Picture
of
Dorian
Gray),
enamored
directly
engaged
in
this
of
the
beautiful
tubercular
(La
modernist
Gothic
dialogue
spitting”
and
wasting
away
Bohème),
and
aroused
by
violence
through
pieces
like
Vampire
could
also
be
associated
with
(Dracula).
That
is,
the
Gothic
is
and
Separation
which
depict
vampires
and
their
victims.” concerned
with
the
monstrous
females
depriving
males
of
within
us,
and
Munch
entered
this
their
so-‐called
life
force.
This
is
ongoing
dialogue
with
his
foray
an
interesting
comment
given
that
most
Gothic
literature
into
expressionism.
features
men
transgressing
against
God,
nature
and
For
Edvard
Munch,
tuberculosis
was
a
Gothic
progress;
men
were
typically
portrayed
as
vampiric,
yet
experience:
it
was
horrifying
and
frightening,
yet
Munch
chose
to
articulate
the
opposite,
which
may
be
somehow
desirable,
somehow
alluring.
This
is
where
indicative
of
the
effect
his
mother’s
and
sister’s
deaths
Susan
Sontag
misses
the
point.
She
argues
that
“TB
takes
had
on
him
both
physically
and
emotionally.
on
qualities
assigned
to
the
lungs,
which
are
part
of
the
By
the
Deathbed
portrays
an
unholy,
troubling
upper,
spiritualized
body”
but
that
“cancer
is…a
demonic
moment.
It
is
both
shocking
and
strangely
intriguing.
pregnancy…[working]
slowly,
insidiously…a
disease
or
The
viewer
is
looking
down
onto
the
deathbed
of
the
pathology
of
space.”18
But
Sontag
is
missing
the
forest
tubercular
patient.
The
body
is
sunken
into
the
sheets,
for
the
trees.
Tuberculosis
is
also
a
battle
fought
within
which
now
serve
as
a
shroud
for
the
corpse.
The
bed
is
the
body,
sometimes
painfully,
or
sometimes
without
ϐ ǡ symptoms.
Tuberculosis
is
similarly
an
insidious
disease
tomb.
Munch
employs
bold
and
swift
brush
strokes
to
which
manifests
itself
with
growing
intensity
over
time.
achieve
this
duality
of
appearance.
The
painting
is
highly
As
Munch
brilliantly
depicts,
tuberculosis
has
its
own
emotional
since
every
character
and
object
can
be
seen
“pathology
of
space”
since
it
spreads
throughout
a
home
in
two
different
ways.
Just
as
the
structures
of
the
room
just
as
cancer
spreads
throughout
the
body.
David
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
9 Punter
argues
that
the
Gothic
(much
like
tuberculosis)
is
an
internal
entity
which
struggles
to
manifest
itself: The
beast
within
cannot
be
killed,
but
that
is
because
it
derives
its
strength
from
the
pressure
with
which
it
is
held
down
by
the
smooth-‐faced
man
on
the
outside.
It
is
our
repressions
that
kill
us,
because
they
conjure
up
forces
within
which
are
far
stronger
than
our
fragile
conventionality
can
withstand.19 Prior
to
Robert
Koch’s
1882
discovery
of
the
tubercle
bacillus,
tuberculosis
was
believed
to
be
a
product
of
uncontrolled
passions
which
overpowered
health.
“This
perception
was
strengthened
by
the
age-‐old
belief,
both
popular
and
professional,
that
consumption
could
be
caused
by
mental
upset…especially
precocious
intellect,
academic
overwork…or
creative
sensibility.”20
Munch
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
with
his
depictions
of
tuberculosis.
Within
this
series,
he
grasped
the
truly
Gothic
nature
of
the
disease.
Spring
depicts
tuberculosis
as
the
disease
of
the
“wanderer”21
with
its
woodsy
décor,
ϐ Ǥ by
the
curtains
may
be
representative
of
the
ethereal
nature
of
TB
or
the
“[sufferer’s]
search
of
the
healthy
place.”20 ϐ undercurrent
of
TB
infection,
the
side
of
the
disease
which
Sontag
omits.
The
Sick
Child
shows
the
pain
and
suffering
ϐ ǯ family.
Tuberculosis
is
not
a
“relatively
painless”
disease
as
Sontag
claims.22 ϐ loss.
Munch
shows
that
TB
victimizes
more
than
just
the
patient;
families
also
suffer.
As
he
developed
his
expressionist
technique,
Munch
delved
more
deeply
into
the
pain
tuberculosis
ϐ Ǥ Death
in
the
Sickroom
and
By
the
Deathbed
explore
the
extraordinary
pain
that
emerges
when
a
loved
one
dies.
Tuberculosis
is
a
disease
which
lingers
before
it
kills,
yet
Munch
argues
that
death
is
always
painful,
it
is
never
expected
nor
is
it
easily
overcome.
In
By
the
Deathbed,
he
becomes
very
aggressive
about
the
emotional
effects
of
TB.
It
is
in
this
work
that
he
directly
and
obviously
engages
with
Gothic
discourse.
The
dual
nature
of
the
piece
(sickroom/mausoleum)
is
a
clear
connection
to
Gothic
conventions.
“The
live
burial…is
a
favorite
conventual
[sic]
punishment
in
Gothic
novels.”23
ǡ ϐ characters
“by
the
deathbed”
are
also
imprisoned
in
this
tomb.
They
too
are
experiencing
burial.
Tuberculosis
then
functions
as
both
a
memento
mori
and
as
a
nightmare
come
to
life.
Who
died
of
tuberculosis
in
eighteenth-‐
and
nineteenth-‐century
Europe?
Who
believed
it
to
be
attractive?
These
are
questions
which
scholars
have
been
trying
to
answer
for
decades.
“Metal
workers,
tailors,
shoemakers,
masons,
printers,
bakers,
and
seamstresses
were
traditionally
high-‐risk
occupations.”24
These
were
the
people
who
actually
lived
with
tuberculosis
and
Ǥ ϐ morbid
conditions
sensual
without
stipulation;
perhaps
this
is
indicative
of
the
dual
nature
and
dual
perception
of
TB.
Edvard
Munch’s
work
may
signify
that
nineteenth-‐ century
men
and
women
found
TB
Gothically
attractive,
not
sexually
or
Romantically
attractive
as
Sontag
and
others
claim.
Ott
makes
the
important
point
that
“[Not]
all
Ǧ ȏ Ȑ ϐ of
consumption.
Side
by
side
with
the
romance,
there
ϐ pain
and
destruction
consumptions
entailed.”25
If
anything
could
put
to
rest
romantic
notions
of
disease,
it
would
be
the
role
of
the
caretaker,
as
The
Sick
Child
poignantly
Ǥ ϐ of
the
tubercular,
the
emergence
of
symptoms
and
the
onset
of
grief
and
loss.
It
is
the
caretaker
who
is
nearest
to
the
patient
and
suffers
grief
over
a
prolonged
period
of
time.
Likewise,
the
caretaker
suffers
loss
with
immediacy.
Conclusion
In
the
post-‐modern
age
of
abstract
and
multi-‐ media
artwork,
tuberculosis
might
seem
outdated
as
a
subject,
but
today
there
are
artists
portraying
the
new
face
of
tuberculosis:
those
at
risk.
Unlike
Munch’s
narrative
portraits,
artists
like
Alice
Neel26
and
Lewis
W.
Hine27
are
showing
those
who
are
at
risk
for
developing
the
disease:
the
poor
and
the
young.
Like
Munch,
Hine
and
Neel
capture
the
pain,
weakness
and
resignation
patient’s
feel
in
the
experience
of
illness.
Alternatively,
there
are
artists
like
Elizabeth
Olds
whose
Tuberculosis
Tests
for
Children
ϐ Ǥ While
tuberculosis
still
kills
over
one
million
people
worldwide
every
year
and
infects
millions
more,
it
has
drifted
away
from
the
American
consciousness.28
It
has
come
to
be
seen
as
a
disease
of
the
Romantic
Age
and
of
HIV
patients,
though
neither
of
these
labels
is
complete.
TB
is
neither
a
disease
exclusive
to
HIV
patients,
nor
was
it
viewed
as
attractive
without
caveat
in
the
Romantic
era.
Munch’s
work
shows
us
that
nineteenth-‐century
conceptions
of
tuberculosis
were
nuanced,
varied
and
deeply
emotional.
Gothic
conventions
prized
women
who
were
fair,
slim
and
frail.
Tubercular
women
shared
these
qualities,
and
for
that
reason
could
be
seen
as
attractive.
But
consumption
was
painful
for
the
patient
and
the
family;
and
its
tendency
to
linger
and
slowly
deprive
the
patient
of
his/her
health
was
emotionally
brutal,
as
Munch’s
The
Sick
Child
conveys.
As
Lawlor
and
Suzuki
argue,
one
might
draw
the
parallel
to
the
modern
day
fascination
with
“heroin
chic”
or
ultra-‐skinny
models.29
Heroin
addiction
itself
is
not
at
all
appealing,
but
the
emaciation
it
entails
is
somehow
attractive
to
the
public.
Gothic
Age
men
even
10 drank
 
  vinegar
 
  to
 
  appear
 
  consumptive
 
  and
 
  frail.30
 
  This
 
  is
 
  analogous
 
 to
 
 the
 
 modern
 
 fad
 
 of
 
 extreme
 
 dieting.
 
  Munch’s
 
  works
 
  catalogue
 
  these
 
  contradictory
 
  emotions
 
  regarding
 
  tuberculosis.
 
  In
 
  Spring
 
  and
 
  The
 
  Sick
 
  Child¸
 
 the
 
 tubercular
 
 patient
 
 is
 
 portrayed
 
 peacefully
 
 and
 
  angelically
 
 in
 
 spite
 
 of
 
 (or
 
 perhaps
 
 because
 
 of)
 
 her
 
 infection.
 
  He
 
  then
 
  engages
 
  in
 
  the
 
  contemporary
 
  Gothic
 
  dialogue
 
  by
 
  portraying
 
 death
 
 by
 
 tuberculosis
 
 as
 
 cruel
 
 and
 
 horrifying
 
 in
 
  Death
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Sickroom
 
 and
 
 By
 
 the
 
 Deathbed.
 
 Neither
 
 art
 
 nor
 
  social
 
 phenomena
 
 occur
 
 in
 
 a
 
 vacuum.
 
 They
 
 exist
 
 in
 
 a
 
 cyclic
 
  relationship,
 
 each
 
 shaping
 
 and
 
 being
 
 shaped
 
 by
 
 the
 
 other.
 
 
‘–Š‹… Ď?‹…–‹‘Â? ’—•Š‡† „ƒ…Â? ƒ‰ƒ‹Â?•– ‘Â?ƒÂ?–‹… Â?‘–‹‘Â?• ‘ˆ artistry
 
 and
 
 “the
 
 good
 
 man�
 
 with
 
 its
 
 focus
 
 on
 
 the
 
 monster
 
  inside.
 
 Social
 
 phenomena
 
 like
 
 a
 
 desire
 
 for
 
 pale,
 
 frail
 
 women
 
  ™‡”‡ ƒ ’”‘†—…– ‘ˆ ‘–Š‹… Ď?‹…–‹‘Â?ǯ• DzŠ‡”‘‹Â?‡• ‘ˆ •‡Â?•‹„‹Ž‹–›Ǥdz31
 
  It
 
 is
 
 unfair
 
 to
 
 label
 
 nineteenth-Ââ€?century
 
 conceptualizations
 
  of
 
 tuberculosis
 
 as
 
 sexy
 
 and
 
 Romantic.
 
 Munch’s
 
 works,
 
 in
 
  accordance
 
 with
 
 nineteenth-Ââ€?century
 
 written
 
 works,
 
 speak
 
  to
 
  a
 
  more
 
  complicated
 
  understanding
 
  of
 
  the
 
  disease,
 
  one
 
  more
 
 in
 
 line
 
 with
 
 Gothic
 
 notions
 
 of
 
 a
 
 monster
 
 (TB)
 
 inside
 
  the
 
 body
 
 and
 
 a
 
 strange
 
 fascination
 
 with
 
 its
 
 manifestation.
 
 
Endnotes 1
 
 
 
  Mayo
 
  Clinic,
 
  “Infectious
 
  Disease:
 
  Tuberculosis,�
 
  http:// w w w. m a y o c l i n i c . c o m / h e a l t h / t u b e r c u l o s i s / D S 0 0 3 7 2 /
 
  DSECTION=symptoms. 2
 
 
 
 Department
 
 of
 
 Health
 
 and
 
 Human
 
 Services,
 
 “TB
 
 and
 
 HIV/AIDS�
 
  Centers
 
  for
 
  Disease
 
  Control,
 
  http://www.cdc.gov/
 
  hiv/resources/ factsheets/hivtb.htm. 3
 
 
 
  Transcript
 
  Providers,
 
  “Anderson
 
  Cooper
 
  360
 
  Degrees�
 
  CNN,
 
  http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/
 
 16/acd.02.html 4
 
 
 
  5
 
 
 
 Thomas
 
 M.
 
 Daniel,
 
 Captain
 
 of
 
 Death.
 
 (Rochester,
 
 NY:
 
 University
 
  of
 
 Rochester
 
 Press,
 
 1997),
 
 30. 6
 
 
 
  Katherine
 
  Ott,
 
  Fevered
 
  Lives.
 
  (Cambridge,
 
  MA:
 
  Harvard
 
  University
 
 Press,
 
 1996),
 
 16.
 
  7
 
 
 
  Susan
 
  Sontag,
 
  Illness
 
  as
 
  Metaphor.
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  Farrar,
 
  Straus
 
  and
 
 Giroux,
 
 1977). 8
 
 
 
  Impressionism
 
  was
 
  the
 
  artistic
 
  movement
 
  characterized
 
  largely
 
  by
 
  pastoral
 
  settings,
 
  soft,
 
  small
 
  and
 
  light
 
  brushstrokes
 
  and
 
  can
 
 be
 
 viewed
 
 as
 
 analogous
 
 to
 
 the
 
 Romantic
 
 movement
 
 in
 
 European
 
  literature.
 
  Impressionism
 
  is
 
  often
 
  seen
 
  as
 
  the
 
  movement
 
  that
 
  ushered
 
  in
 
  Pointillism.
 
  Expressionism
 
  was
 
  the
 
  artistic
 
  movement
 
  …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹œ‡† „› ‡Ž‡Â?‡Â?–ƒŽ ‡Â?‘–‹‘Â?ÇĄ Ď?ÂŽÂƒÂ–ÇĄ ™‹†‡ ƒÂ?† •™‡‡’‹Â?‰ brushstrokes
 
  and
 
  the
 
  blurring
 
  of
 
  time
 
  and
 
  space
 
  within
 
  the
 
  frame.
 
  Expressionism
 
  can
 
  be
 
  viewed
 
  as
 
  analogous
 
  to
 
  Modernist
 
  and
 
  Gothic
 
  literature
 
 and
 
 seen
 
 as
 
 a
 
 harbinger
 
 of
 
 Surrealism
 
 and
 
 Cubism. 9
 
 
 
 David
 
 Loshak,
 
 “Space,
 
 time
 
 and
 
 Edvard
 
 Munch,�
 
 The
 
 Burlington
 
  Magazine,
 
 April
 
 1989,
 
 273-Ââ€?282. 10
 
 
 
  Frederick
 
  S.
 
  Wight,
 
  “Introduction
 
  to
 
  Edvard
 
  Munch,�
 
  The
 
  Kenyon
 
 Review,
 
 12
 
 (1950):
 
 457-Ââ€?469. 11
 
 
 
  Susan
 
  Sontag,
 
  Illness
 
  as
 
  Metaphor.
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  Farrar,
 
  Straus
 
  and
 
 Giroux,
 
 1977),
 
 16-Ââ€?19. ͳʹ Š‘†ƒ Ǥ ‡Â?Ž‡‹Â?ÇĄ Dz Â?Ď?Ž—‡Â?…‡ ‘ˆ –—„‡”…—Ž‘•‹• ‘Â? –Š‡ ™‘”Â? ‘ˆ visual
 
  artists:
 
  several
 
  prominent
 
  examples,�
 
  Leonardo
 
  14
 
  (1981):
 
  115-Ââ€?116. 13
 
 
 
  Susan
 
  Sontag,
 
  Illness
 
  as
 
  Metaphor.
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  Farrar,
 
  Straus
 
  and
 
 Giroux,
 
 1977),
 
 16. 14
 
 
 
 David
 
 Loshak,
 
 “Space,
 
 time
 
 and
 
 Edvard
 
 Munch,�
 
 The
 
 Burlington
 
  Magazine,
 
 April
 
 1989,
 
 273.
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
15
 
 
 
 Memento
 
 mori
 
 from
 
 the
 
 Latin
 
 reminder
 
 of
 
 death
 
 was
 
 a
 
 tool
 
 used
 
  in
 
 Medieval,
 
 Gothic
 
 and
 
 Modernist
 
 literature
 
 and
 
 art
 
 to
 
 represent
 
 the
 
  individual’s
 
 eventual
 
 and
 
 inevitable
 
 demise
 
 into
 
 death.
 
 The
 
 memento
 
  mori
 
 is
 
 classically
 
 represented
 
 as
 
 a
 
 “death’s
 
 head�
 
 or
 
 skull. 16
 
 
 
  Clark
 
  Lawlor,
 
  Consumption
 
  and
 
  Literature,
 
  (London:
 
  Antony
 
  Rowe
 
 Ltd,
 
 2006),
 
 188. 17
 
 
 
  For
 
  a
 
  clear
 
  distinction
 
  between
 
  these
 
  two
 
  terms
 
  refer
 
  to:
 
  Ann
 
  Radcliffe,
 
  “On
 
  the
 
  Supernatural
 
  in
 
  Poetry,�
 
  New
 
  Monthly
 
  Magazine,
 
  1926,
 
 145-Ââ€?152. 18
 
 
 
  Susan
 
  Sontag,
 
  Illness
 
  as
 
  Metaphor.
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  Farrar,
 
  Straus
 
  and
 
 Giroux,
 
 1977),
 
 13-Ââ€?17. 19
 
 
 
 David
 
 Punter,
 
 “Mutations
 
 of
 
 terror:
 
 theory
 
 and
 
 the
 
 Gothic,�
 
 The
 
  Literature
 
  of
 
  Terror:
 
  A
 
  History
 
  of
 
  gothic
 
  Fictions
 
  from
 
  1765
 
  to
 
  the
 
  present
 
 day
 
 2
 
 (1996):
 
 191. 20
 
 
 
  Clark
 
  Lawlor
 
  and
 
  Akihito
 
  Suzuki,
 
  “Disease
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Self:
 
  Representing
 
 Consumption,�
 
 Bulletin
 
 of
 
 the
 
 History
 
 of
 
 Medicine
 
 74
 
 
 
  (2000):
 
 476. 21
 
 
 
  Susan
 
  Sontag,
 
  Illness
 
  as
 
  Metaphor.
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  Farrar,
 
  Straus
 
  and
 
 Giroux,
 
 1977),
 
 33. 22
 
 
 
 Ibid,
 
 16. 23
 
 
 
 Eve
 
 Kokofsky
 
 Sedgwick,
 
 “The
 
 Structure
 
 of
 
 Gothic
 
 Conventions,�
 
  The
 
  Coherence
 
  of
 
  Gothic
 
  Conventions
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  Methuen,
 
  1986),
 
  20.
 
  24
 
 
 
  Thomas
 
  Dormandy,
 
  The
 
  White
 
  Death.
 
  (New
 
  York:
 
  New
 
  York
 
  University
 
 Press,
 
 2000),
 
 82. 25
 
 
 
  Katherine
 
  Ott,
 
  Fevered
 
  Lives.
 
  (Cambridge,
 
  MA:
 
  Harvard
 
  University
 
 Press,
 
 1996),
 
 16. 26
 
 
 
 TB
 
 Harlem,
 
 oil
 
 on
 
 canvas
 
 (1940) 27
 
 
 
 Tubercular
 
 Child¸
 
 photograph
 
 (c.
 
 1909-Ââ€?1912) 28
 
 
 
  http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/2008/ key_points/en/index.html 29
 
 
 
  Clark
 
  Lawlor
 
  and
 
  Akihito
 
  Suzuki,
 
  “Disease
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Self:
 
  Representing
 
 Consumption,�
 
 Bulletin
 
 of
 
 the
 
 History
 
 of
 
 Medicine
 
 74
 
 
 
  (2000):
 
 494. 30
 
 
 
  Otto
 
  Peter,
 
  “Jane
 
  Austen:
 
  Northanger
 
  Abbey,�
 
  (Lecture,
 
  University
 
 of
 
 Melbourne,
 
 March
 
 31,
 
 2008). 31
 
 
 
  Clark
 
  Lawlor,
 
  Consumption
 
  and
 
  Literature,
 
  (London:
 
  Antony
 
  Rowe
 
 Ltd,
 
 2006),
 
 55-Ââ€?58.
11
The
Church
and
Its
Discontents: The
Holy
See’s
Evolving
Perception
of
the
Copernican
Threat By Matthew Bozik, Yale ‘10 In
1633
the
Catholic
Church
responded
root
out
heliocentric
leanings
among
Catholic
believers.
aggressively
to
what
it
viewed
as
a
dangerous
outburst
of
However,
by
1633,
the
Church’s
understanding
of
the
the
heliocentric
cosmology,
which
the
Holy
Congregation
ǡ ϐ of
the
Index
had
declared
heretical
in
1616.
Galileo’s
now
construed
cosmology
as
capable
of
undermining
Dialogue
Concerning
the
Two
Chief
World
Systems,
not
only
their
prestige
among
the
masses
but
also
their
published
in
1632,
had
done
much
to
disquiet
Vatican
Ǥ ϐ priests,
who
worried
that
Copernicanism
might
not
only
did
not
change
between
1616
and
1633,
the
Holy
See’s
become
popular
among
the
masses
but
actually
debunk
perception
of
Copernicanism
transformed
dramatically. the
Church’s
geocentric
teachings.
To
stem
the
spread
of
In
the
years
leading
up
to
1616,
Catholic
this
heresy,
the
Church
proscribed
the
Dialogue,
placed
ϐ Galileo
under
house
arrest,
and
commissioned
the
Jesuit
ϐ priest
Melchior
Inchofer
to
draft
the
Tractatus
Syllepticus
the
biblical
exegeses
of
the
Church
fathers,
who
(1633),
an
acerbic
rejoinder
to
heliocentrism.
While
the
had
almost
unanimously
upheld
geocentrism
as
ϐ the
proper
astronomical
position.
We
can
discern
of
public
attention
(as
they
do
this
lack
of
awareness
in
the
today),
they
were
not
particularly
Church
correspondence
of
the
unusual
actions
for
the
Church
time.
In
1615,
the
Inquisition
to
take
when
dealing
with
“The
elementary
manner
in
Rome
received
several
alleged
heresies
or
heretics;
the
in
which
Lorini
described
reports
from
its
informants
commissioning
of
the
Tractatus,
in
regard
to
people
espousing
Copernicanism
reveals
much
however,
was
unprecedented.
heliocentrism.
Dominican
friar
Never
before
had
Catholic
about
the
Church
here:
Lorini
Niccolo
Lorini
was
one
such
ϐ was
not
condescending
but
informant,
whose
report
to
a
treatise
to
discredit
Copernican
seemed
genuinely
to
believe
that
Cardinal
Paolo
Sfrondrati
at
the
views
or
to
defend
the
Church’s
ϐ astronomical
position.1
This
he
should
explain
in
the
most
well
illuminates
contemporary
extraordinary
behavior
raises
basic
terms
to
his
correspondent
Vatican
sentiments.
A
salient
the
question
of
whether,
or
to
who
“Galileists”
were
and
what
characteristic
of
Lorini’s
letter
what
extent,
the
Vatican’s
stance
is
the
didactic
tone
that
he
they
represented.” on
Copernicanism
had
changed
assumed
in
addressing
the
between
1616
and
1633,
a
cardinal.
Lorini,
reporting
from
question
which
Galileo
scholar
Florence
in
February,
declared
Richard
Blackwell
confronts
that
he
was
contacting
the
in
his
work
entitled
Behind
the
Scenes
at
Galileo’s
Trial
ϐ Dz (2006).
In
it,
Blackwell
attempts
to
tackle
the
subject
passing
through
everybody’s
hands
here,
originating
almost
entirely
by
analyzing
Inchofer’s
Tractatus.
This
among
those
known
as
‘Galileists,’
who,
following
the
focused
approach
enables
him
to
identify
emergent
ǡ ϐ reactionary
patterns
in
Catholic
thinking
in
1633
the
heavens
stand
still.”2
The
elementary
manner
in
but
simultaneously
prevents
him
from
assessing
the
which
Lorini
described
Copernicanism
reveals
much
Church’s
ideology
in
1616
as
well
as
from
exploring
the
about
the
Church
here:
Lorini
was
not
condescending
ϐ Ǥ but
seemed
genuinely
to
believe
that
he
should
paper
constitutes
an
extension
of
Blackwell’s
work
by
explain
in
the
most
basic
terms
to
his
correspondent
exploring
how
the
vehement
reaction
of
the
Holy
See
in
who
“Galileists”
were
and
what
they
represented.
ͳ͵͵ ǡ ϐ ǡ It
would
seem
then,
on
the
basis
of
this
letter,
Ǥ ͳͳǡ ϐ ϐ with
remarkable
dispassion
in
proscribing
heliocentrism:
heliocentric
disturbances.
In
fact,
later
in
the
letter,
Lorini
they
exhibited
little
desire
to
refute
Copernicanism
or
to
referred
to
heliocentrists
in
an
amiable
tone,
suggesting
12 suggesting
a
certain
cordiality
in
the
cosmological
de-‐ as
inconsistent
with
Church
teaching
and
offered
only
bates
of
the
period:
“I
declare
that
I
regard
all
those
who
ϐ are
called
Galileists
as
men
of
goodwill
and
good
Chris-‐ ǣ ǡ ϐ ǡ ϐ Ǥdz3
literal
interpretations
of
the
Bible.
In
regard
to
theories
Although
Lorini
disclaimed
Copernicanism,
he
pointedly
of
the
earth’s
motion,
the
consultants
elaborated
refused
to
resort
to
vitriol.
In
making
this
declaration,
he
that
the
“proposition
receives
the
same
judgment
[as
was
undoubtedly
moved
to
disavow
bias
or
a
desire
to
heliocentrism]
in
philosophy
and
in
regard
to
theological
ϐ Ǥ4
Nev-‐ truth
it
is
at
least
erroneous
in
fact.”7
Interestingly,
this
ertheless,
the
friar
did
not
consider
“Galileists”
as
mali-‐ dismissal
did
not
forbid
theories
of
the
earth’s
motion
cious
heretics
bent
on
disuniting
the
Church
but
as
men
outright,
nor
did
it
forbid
Catholics
from
espousing
worthy
of
respect,
perhaps
simply
needing
to
be
dis-‐ such
views.
This
unwillingness
to
proscribe
such
hypotheses
exposed
the
doubtful
commitment
of
abused
of
their
misguided
beliefs.
Moreover,
that
Lorini
presumed
that
his
personal
ϐ Ǣ views
on
Copernicanism
were
of
interest
to
the
powerful
palpable
vacillation
on
the
part
of
the
consultants
was
ϐ only
further
underscored
by
their
use
of
the
phrase
“at
self-‐importance
but
more
probably
suggested
that
the
least
erroneous”
in
regard
to
ideas
of
the
earth’s
motion. At
the
same
time,
however,
this
reluctance
to
ban
Church’s
stance
on
Copernicus’s
theory
had
not
been
articulated
clearly,
if
at
all.
In
his
conclusion,
Lorini
such
speculation
completely
also
implied
a
conviction
that
even
if
Christians
were
stated:
“Thus
if
it
seems
to
you
that
permitted
to
entertain
such
there
is
any
need
for
correction,
ϐ “Unlike
for
proscribed
books,
the
ideas,
these
errors
would
neither
become
prevalent
nor
you
judge
necessary,
in
order
that
Decree
did
not
stipulate
explicit
destabilize
Church
teaching:
a
small
error
at
the
beginning
assessment
seemed
does
not
become
great
at
the
penalties
for
those
possessing
or
this
end.”5
Lorini
was
evidently
unsure
publishing
Copernicus’s
work,
reasonable
given
the
likelihood
ϐ nor
did
it
make
clear
what
the
that
the
Church,
had
it
been
seriously
alarmed,
almost
respond
to
the
news
he
brought;
ambiguous
term
“suspended”
ϐ this
uncertainty
is
another
means.” debate
on
the
issue,
as
it
would
indication
that
the
Church
had
not
in
1633.
Even
the
March
5,
1616
developed
more
than
an
inchoate
Decree
of
the
Index,89
which
stance
on
Copernicanism.
Even
Lorini
suspected
that
this
matter
might
be
too
trivial
made
public
the
Church’s
proscription
of
heliocentrism,
to
merit
attention,
as
he
tacitly
conceded
that
Church
pointed
to
a
general
unconcern
on
the
part
of
Catholic
ϐ Ǥ ϐ ϐ And
while
the
Dominican
sensed
that
the
issue
could
the
heliocentric
cosmology.
First
of
all,
the
notorious
become
“great
at
the
end,”
he
acknowledged
that
it
interdiction
of
On
the
Revolutions
occurred
only
in
was
in
reality
a
“small
error,”
a
phrase
that
underscores
ǡ ϐ that
in
1616
even
the
Church’s
most
emphatic
books
before
even
mentioning
Copernicus’s
work.
detractors
of
heliocentrism,
such
as
Lorini,
did
not
The
Holy
See,
moreover,
did
not
prohibit
Copernicus’s
consider
the
cosmology
to
be
all
that
problematic. work
as
it
did
the
others
–
which
do
not
even
involve
Even
though
such
warnings
eventually
induced
astronomical
heresy
–
but
proposed
rather
that
On
the
ǡ ϐ Revolutions
be
“suspended”9
until
proper
emendations
ϐ were
made.10
Unlike
for
proscribed
books,
the
Decree
theological
threat.
They
sought
to
fashion
neither
a
did
not
stipulate
explicit
penalties
for
those
possessing
defense
of
their
own
views
nor
an
anti-‐Copernican
or
publishing
Copernicus’s
work,
nor
did
it
make
clear
polemic.
This
near-‐indifference
is
conspicuous
even
what
the
ambiguous
term
“suspended”
means.
On
top
ǯ ϐ ǡ of
this
listless
admonition,
the
Vatican
moved
only
with
which
came
in
the
form
of
a
consultants’
report
in
1616.
great
torpidity
to
halt
the
spread
of
Copernican
works,
The
result
of
a
three-‐day
council,
the
report
found
that
not
even
offering
its
emendations
to
On
the
Revolutions
heliocentrism
was
“formally
heretical”
and
that
theories
until
16201.12 ϐ of
the
earth’s
movement
were
philosophically
“absurd.”6
real
sense
of
urgency,
they
would
have
hastened
to
The
conclusions
to
which
the
eleven
consultants
came
proffer
the
“corrected”
version
of
Copernicus’s
work.
are
striking
in
their
brevity.
In
fewer
than
one
hundred
ϐ ǡ ϐ views
would
not
metastasize
appreciably
even
if
some
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
13 unapproved
copies
were
to
circulate. ϐ period
was
for
those
who
advocated
Copernicanism
as
a
model
to
avoid
making
the
Church
look
antiquated
or
out-‐of-‐touch.
This
sentiment
comes
across
in
a
March
4,
1616
letter
that
Piero
Guicciardini,
the
Tuscan
ambassador
to
Rome,
sent
to
the
Grand
Duke
of
Tuscany,
Cosimo
II.
Explaining
why
the
Decree
of
the
Index
was
to
be
published
the
next
day,
the
diplomat
wrote
querulously
of
Galileo:
“The
Lord
Cardinal
del
Monte
and
myself,
and
also
several
cardinals
from
the
Holy
ϐ ǡ ȏ Ȑ and
not
to
go
irritating
this
issue.
If
he
wanted
to
hold
this
Copernican
opinion,
he
was
told,
let
him
hold
it
quietly
and
not
spend
so
much
effort
in
trying
to
have
others
share
it.”13
The
Tuscan’s
letter
reveals
that
Vatican
ϐ ϐ departed
from
their
own
so
long
as
those
with
whom
they
disagreed
did
not
disseminate
those
views
widely
or
discredit
the
Church’s
own
position.
Indeed,
Guicciardini
implied
that
even
a
limited
amount
of
discussion
would
have
been
acceptable
to
the
Holy
See
but
that
Galileo
had
overstepped
his
bounds
in
expending
“so
much
effort”
to
advertise
heliocentric
hypotheses.
From
Guicciardini’s
letter,
it
seems
that
only
when
pressed
did
the
Vatican
depart
from
a
laissez-‐faire
approach
to
astronomical
debate.
Guicciardini’s
use
of
the
word
“irritating”
in
ǡ ǡ ϐ were
more
weary
of
the
Copernican
issue
than
worried.
The
diplomat
thus
tangentially
revealed
that
the
Index
had
decided
to
proscribe
heliocentrism
more
out
of
precautionary
principles
than
genuine
apprehension.
ϐ ǡ to
be
safe
and
constrain
a
“small
error”
before
it
might
become
“great
at
the
end.”
But
prior
to
the
1616
Decree
even
one
of
the
most
adamant
opponents
of
literal
interpretations
of
the
Bible,
Cardinal
Robert
Bellarmine,
intimated
his
willingness
to
engage
in
dialogue
with
Copernicanists.
While
in
his
1615
letter
to
Father
Paolo
Foscarini,
a
heliocentric
advocate,
the
cardinal
delicately
rejected
Copernicanism
as
inimical
to
Church
teaching,
he
nevertheless
conceded:
“If
there
were
a
true
demonstration
[of
heliocentrism]…
then
one
would
have
to
proceed
with
great
care
in
explaining
the
Scriptures
that
are
contrary….
But
I
will
not
believe
that
there
is
such
a
demonstration,
until
it
is
shown
to
me…
[although]
I
believe
the
demonstration
may
be
available.”14
Most
telling
here
is
that
Bellarmine
implicitly
conceded
that
the
Church’s
position
might
be
wrong:
even
for
Bellarmine,
it
was
possible
that
someone
might
ϐ Ǥ ǡ Bellarmine
desired
to
approach
the
issue
with
a
great
deal
of
circumspection
–
and
as
a
geocentrist
he
was
no
doubt
rooting
against
the
Galileists
–
but
the
frankness
with
which
he
treated
the
matter
suggested
an
open-‐ mindedness
that
would
be
strikingly
absent
in
the
1630s. ͳ͵͵ ϐ disquieted
by
novel
arguments
in
favor
of
Copernicanism,
which
they
feared
would
weaken
the
sway
of
decades
of
Church
teaching.
Father
Melchior
Inchofer,
particularly,
worried
that
Galileo’s
writings
on
Copernicanism
would
cause
Church
traditionalists,
as
he
wrote
in
his
April
1633
report
on
the
Dialogue,
to
appear
“small-‐minded,
unable
to
penetrate
the
depth
of
the
issue,
half-‐witted,
and
almost
idiotic.”15
The
neurotic
manner
in
which
Inchofer
itemized
the
negative
characteristics
that
he
feared
the
masses
might
come
to
associate
with
the
Church
revealed
Ǧ ϐ seventeen
years
earlier.
Inchofer
and
his
peers
were
apprehensive
not
just
that
Galileo
would
prove
them
incorrect,
but
that
he
would
demonstrate
their
position
to
be
absurdly
antiquated
and
inane.
We
may
further
discern
such
anxiety
in
the
April
1633
report
of
Zaccaria
Pasqualigo,
a
professor
of
sacred
theology
in
Rome,
whom
the
Index
also
asked
to
review
Galileo’s
work: He
[Galileo]
explains
his
doctrine
[i.e.,
Ȑ ϐ persuasive,
even
people
knowledgeable
in
the
mathematical
sciences….
In
the
whole
course
of
the
book
he
appears
to
adhere
closely
to
this
opinion,
exerting
himself
skillfully
to
transmit
it
as
true
and
to
destroy
the
opposite;
for
he
tears
down
all
the
reasons
by
which
the
latter
is
defended,
and
he
seems
to
feel
that
the
ones
ǯ ϐ Ǥ16 Pasqualigo,
well-‐connected
in
scholarly
circles
in
Rome
and
Padua,
clearly
understood
the
gravity
of
the
situation:
Galileo
was
not
merely
pandering
to
the
masses
–
those
who
could
not
discern
well-‐reasoned
argumentation
from
heretical
chicanery
–
but
had
launched
successfully
an
argument
that
was
claiming
devotees
even
among
the
educated.
Although
Pasqualigo
readily
conceded
the
force
of
Galileo’s
heliocentric
argument,
he
insinuated
that
the
Florentine’s
hypothesis
of
the
earth’s
motion
is
somewhat
less
compelling.
But
this
latter
conclusion
–
Is
this
the
most
caustic
remark
that
Pasqualigo
could
direct
against
the
Dialogue?
–
only
further
underscored,
by
contrast,
the
high
caliber
of
Galileo’s
principal
claim
for
heliocentrism.
In
addition,
for
leaders
who
were
viscerally
opposed
to
Copernicanism,
it
was
particularly
worrisome
that
Galileo
had
concocted
theories
that
seemingly
resolved
discrepancies
between
heliocentrism
and
Scripture.
Such
a
sentiment
was
apparent
in
Inchofer’s
report,
in
which
he
expressed
concern
that
Galileo
had
“not
only
proved
Copernicus’s
opinion
but
established
it
ϐ Ǥdz17
Inchofer
was
thus
pointed
to
a
deep-‐rooted
unwillingness
to
approve
heliocentrism
even
if
such
a
cosmology
were
to
be
14 reconciled
with
the
Bible.
Indeed,
his
remark
suggested
Ǥ ϐ ǡ ǡ ϐ now
worried
that
many
people
would
not
only
follow
accepted
any
rapprochement
with
heliocentrists.
Galileo
but
also
imitate
him
in
seeking
to
corroborate
ϐ heliocentric
hypotheses.
This
fear
is
evident
in
the
ϐ ǯ ϐ Cardinal
Bellarmine,
who
had
begrudgingly
conceded
in
1633:
“So
that
this
serious
and
pernicious
error
and
that
he
would
have
to
accept
Copernicanism
were
transgression
of
yours
does
not
remain
completely
Ǥ ϐ ǡ ǡ unpunished,
and
so
that
you
will
be
more
cautious
in
the
See
felt
theologically
threatened
by
this
worldview. future
and
an
example
for
others
to
abstain
from
similar
ǡ ϐ crimes
[my
emphasis],
we
order
that
the
book
Dialogue
of
a
reinvigorated
argument
on
behalf
of
Copernicanism
by
Galileo
Galilei
be
prohibited
by
public
edict.”21
This
and
an
increasingly
discredited
geocentric
stance
on
the
admonition
enclosed
a
delicate
shift
in
policy.
No
longer
part
of
the
Church
could
only
galvanize
the
masses
to
ϐ embrace
Galileo’s
cosmology.
A
1633
Inquisition
report
Copernican
works;
it
now
sought
to
remove
such
works
on
the
Dialogue
stated
that
“with
entirely
from
circulation.
the
printing
of
this
book
the
false
“The
nonchalance
with
which
A
simple
change
in
diction
opinion
of
the
earth’s
motion
the
Vatican
approached
the
underscored
this
shift
in
policy:
and
sun’s
stability
[is]
being
whereas
On
the
Revolutions
of
heliocentric
was
merely
“suspended,”
the
disseminated
and
taking
hold
circulation
more
and
more
every
day.”18
This
beliefs
through
1616
and
Dialogue
was
“prohibited,”
a
statement
seems
paranoid
when
even
after
was
in
marked
more
severe
penalty.
We
may
juxtaposed
with
the
Church’s
locate
the
impetus
contrast
to
this
paternalistic
perhaps
evaluation
of
the
Copernican
for
the
Church’s
decision
to
Church
prohibit,
not
suspend,
Galileo’s
threat
in
1616.
As
we
may
recall
overprotectiveness.
from
Lorini’s
letter,
during
that
ϔ ǡ ǡ work
in
the
dismissive
attitude
ϐ worried
that
many
people
of
Inchofer
toward
the
masses.
It
ϐ would
appear
that
a
diminished
would
not
only
follow
Galileo
on
–
or
even
much
attention
to
–
ϐ attempts
to
propagate
Copernican
but
also
imitate
him
in
seeking
people
was
accompanied
by
views.
Indeed,
in
1620
the
fathers
to
corroborate
heliocentric
a
compulsion
to
“protect”
of
the
Index
confessed
in
their
them
by
any
means
necessary. hypotheses.
” corrections
of
Copernicus’s
On
ϐ ǯ the
Revolutions
that
the
work
the
growing
popularity
of
contained
information
that
was
“very
useful
generally,”
Copernicanism
could
have
only
been
compounded
remarking
that
they
were
“very
pleased”
to
remove
the
by
the
fact
that
members
of
the
Church
itself
were
book
from
their
list
of
suspended
works.19
Now,
Inchofer
beginning
to
embrace
–
or
at
least
entertain
–
Galileo’s
maintained
that
Galileo
cleverly
presented
his
cosmology
views.
Even
a
harsh
critic
of
Galileo,
the
Jesuit
priest
in
such
a
way
as
to
deceive
people
into
embracing
Christopher
Scheiner,
whom
the
Vatican
had
selected
Copernicanism.
Dismissing
Galileo’s
claim
that
he
had
to
review
Melchior
Inchofer’s
Tractatus
prior
to
composed
the
Dialogue
in
order
to
dispute
foreigners
who
publication,
disputed
some
of
the
author’s
claims: argued
that
the
Holy
See
clung
to
archaic
superstitions,
It
appears
that
the
author
[Inchofer]
asserts
Inchofer
wrote:
“He
[Galileo]
tries
to
strengthen
too
absolutely…
that
the
motion
of
the
sun
Copernicanism
with
new
arguments
of
which
foreigners
and
the
immobility
of
the
earth
are
matters
would
never
think
in
this
connection;
and
he
writes
in
ǡ ϐ Italian,
certainly
not
to
extend
the
hand
to
foreigners
are
in
question,
and
are
not
thought
to
be
true
or
other
learned
men,
but
rather
to
entice
to
that
view
matters
of
faith.
Moreover,
he
should
indicate
common
people
in
whom
errors
very
easily
take
root.”20
ϐ While
Inchofer
easily
apprehended
Galileo’s
of
faith.
I
believe
that
similar
considerations
guise,
he
manifested
discernibly
greater
and
more
ought
to
be
taken
into
account
with
respect
to
condescending
concern
for
safeguarding
the
common
the
circular
motion
of
the
sun
and
the
center
of
Catholic
from
heresy
than
did
his
predecessors.
The
the
earth
being
in
the
middle
of
the
universe.22 nonchalance
with
which
the
Vatican
approached
the
This
is
a
remarkable
statement
from
Scheiner,
given
not
circulation
of
heliocentric
beliefs
through
1616
and
only
his
bitter
scholastic
feud
with
and
personal
animus
even
after
was
in
marked
contrast
to
this
paternalistic
toward
Galileo
but
also
the
Church’s
de
facto
position
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
15 at
the
time.
Scheiner
was
indirectly
questioning,
by
the
Barberini
family
symbol
of
Pope
Urban
VIII.25
The
opposing
Inchofer
on
this
point,
the
stance
of
the
Holy
Pope
was
not
the
only
one
to
recommend
the
work.
The
See
itself.
We
can
also
derive
some
sense
of
the
popularity
Commissary
General
of
the
Roman
Curia,
Luke
Wadding,
of
heliocentrism
during
this
period
from
Scheiner’s
who
offered
final
sanction
to
the
Tractatus,
opined: remark
that
geocentric
tenets
“are
not
thought
to
be
The
content
of
this
book
is
exceedingly
true
matters
of
faith”:
the
vague
passive
construction
of
welcomed,
especially
in
this
day
when
certain
the
sentence,
in
failing
to
indicate
who
exactly
has
come
people,
whose
ears
itch
because
of
their
simple
to
accept
these
views,
intimated
that
the
Copernican
innocence,
have
distracted
their
hearing
from
element
was
ubiquitous
in
Rome
and
abroad.
No
doubt
the
sacred
truth
of
the
divine
Scripture
and
particularly
worrisome
to
Vatican
officials
was
that
have
turned
to
fables.
This
theologian
has
given
Scheiner
proceeded
to
call
into
question
other
Catholic
a
Christian
refutation
of
these
Pythagoreans.
dogmas,
notably
the
centrality
of
the
earth’s
position
And
he
shows
rightly
that
mathematics
and
in
the
universe.
Such
reasoning
could
only
lead
the
other
human
sciences
should
be
subordinated
Church
to
conclude
that
Copernicanism
represented
to
the
rule
of
Sacred
Scripture,
lest
in
our
one
slippery
slope
to
other
heretical
misconceptions.
day
there
occur
a
dangerous
detour
into
an
Scheiner’s
heterodoxy
must
have
been
all
the
excessive
freedom
that
would
arbitrarily
more
alarming
to
the
Church
given
that
the
Jesuit
was
interpret,
or
rather
adulterate,
the
words
of
clearly
not
acting
out
of
sympathy
God
to
serve
the
purposes
with
Galileo,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
of
the
human
imagination.26 Father
Wadding’s
repetitive
use
Scheiner
was
not
the
only
priest
“Catholic
dogmas,
notably
of
the
phrases
“especially
in
this
beginning
to
question
the
Church’s
unyielding
position.
Others
within
the
centrality
of
the
earth’s
day”
and
“in
our
day”
pointed
to
the
Vatican
evidently
accepted
position
in
the
universe.
Such
the
Church’s
general
sense
that
Galileo’s
views,
as
officials
of
the
reasoning
could
only
lead
it
was
encountering
a
heresy
more
intractable
than
those
Holy
Congregation
had
originally
approved
the
Dialogue
for
the
Church
to
conclude
that
of
past
ages.
Wadding’s
words
publication.
Although
Pope
Urban
Copernicanism
represented
also
presented
an
intriguing
foil
would
blame
Galileo
for
deceiving
one
slippery
slope
to
other
to
the
remarks
of
Bellarmine
in
his
letter
to
Foscarini
in
the
inquisitors
by
neglecting
to
heretical
misconceptions.”
1615:
whereas
Bellarmine
had
mention
that
he
had
been
enjoined
conceived
of
astronomy
and
years
earlier
not
to
practice
Copernicanism,
this
excuse
does
not
explain
away
the
theology
as
informing
one
another,
Wadding
evidently
fact
that
several
key
officials
had
accepted
the
Dialogue
desired
to
segregate
the
two.
Indicative
of
the
pervasive
on
its
own
merits.
Even
Pope
Urban
could
not
entirely
paranoia
that
had
afflicted
the
Church
was
Wadding’s
deny
that
certain
officials
within
the
Vatican
had
taken
associatinged
mere
attempts
to
“interpret”
the
Bible
up
deviant
views
and
were
behaving
contrary
to
his
with
acts
of
Scriptural
“adulterat[ion].”
Most
striking,
will:
as
reported
by
one
ambassador
to
the
Holy
See,
however,
was
that
the
Holy
See
felt
the
need
at
all
to
the
Pope
complained
aloud
one
day
that
“Ciampoli
and
offer
“a
Christian
refutation
of
these
Pythagoreans,”
the
Master
of
the
Sacred
Palace
[who
had
overseen
the
which
the
Holy
Congregation
had
conspicuously
failed
Dialogue’s
review]
had
behaved
badly
[in
approving
to
produce
in
the
1610s.
Inchofer
himself
echoed
the
work]
and
that
subordinates
who
do
not
do
what
Wadding’s
paranoid
fear
of
new-‐age
ideas
when
their
masters
want
are
the
worst
possible
servants.”23
he
writes
in
his
preface
to
the
Tractatus:
“In
this
On
top
of
this,
a
Jesuit
council
blocked
the
publication
era
of
the
author,
many
hands
are
itching
to
write,
of
another
of
Inchofer’s
anti-‐Copernican
treatises,
and
intelligent
people
are
exhausted
both
by
newly
a
decision
that,
as
Blackwell
observes,
exposed
discovered
arguments
and
by
old
remembered
ones.
I
bitter
philosophical
divisions
within
the
Church.24 do
not
understand
how
there
can
be
so
much
idle
time
For
the
great
majority
of
Church
officials,
for
people
to
write
about
things
that
are
forbidden.”27
however,
such
liberal
thinking
was
patently
dangerous,
Inchofer’s
use
of
the
plural
“people”
revealed
that
not
and
in
reaction
to
the
renascent
heliocentrism,
the
just
Galileo
was
engaging
in
heretical
activity,
although
Holy
See
formulated
a
rebuttal
of
its
own.
Inchofer’s
this
general
word
suggested
either
that
Inchofer
Tractatus
was
a
principal
piece
of
the
attack
on
Galileo’s
could
not
readily
identify
who
else
was
propagating
position.
That
Inchofer’s
work
enjoyed
especial
papal
such
beliefs
or
that
the
Jesuit
was
exaggerating.
encouragement
is
evident
from
the
cover
page
of
the
In
either
case,
the
Church
was
overreaching
in
Tractatus,
which
featured
the
iconography
of
three
bees,
its
attempts
to
constrain
scientific
advancement.
16 As
we
have
seen,
the
Church’s
understanding
of
Copernicanism
experienced
a
profound
metamorphosis
between
1616
and
1633.
An
examination
of
Vatican
correspondence
enables
us
to
identify
a
de
facto
shift
in
policy
as
well
as
to
pinpoint
the
impetus
and
rationale
that
informed
it.
That
the
Holy
See’s
apprehension
about
the
Copernican
heresy
had
come
to
govern
its
policies
may
perhaps
be
most
strikingly
ǯ ǡ ǡ ϐ ǡ theories
of
the
earth’s
motion
were
declared
heretical
rather
than
just
philosophically
absurd.28
However,
this
hardening
of
the
Church’s
posture
did
not
stem
merely
ϐ Ǥ top
of
this,
the
Church’s
perception
of
its
adherents
underwent
a
noticeable
transformation
during
Ǥ ϐ Ȃ in
Inchofer’s
and
Waddings’
writings
and
in
other
Church
correspondence
–
increasingly
dismissive
of
the
masses.
Not
only
do
we
observe
a
condescending
posture
toward
everyday
Catholics
that
had
been
absent
in
1616,
but
we
can
also
seeincreased
anxiety
that
common
people
were
intellectually
incapable
of
detecting
heresy.
This
reactionary
stance
on
the
part
of
the
Church
was
perhaps
novel
in
its
intensity,
but
we
can
actually
locate
its
provenance
almost
a
century
earlier
in
a
Vatican
policy
expounded
at
the
Council
of
Trent,
where
it
was
stated
in
1546:
“To
control
petulant
spirits,
the
Council
decrees
that
in
matters
of
faith
ϐ doctrine,
no
one,
relying
on
his
own
judgment
and
distorting
the
Sacred
Scriptures
according
to
his
own
conceptions,
shall
dare
to
interpret
them
contrary
to
that
sense
[approved
by
the
Church].”29 ϐ frequently
cited
this
declaration
in
condemning
Copernicanism
in
1633,
a
striking
move
given
that
pure
Copernicanism
involved
no
explicit
Scriptural
exegesis,
the
interpretive
activity
to
which
the
Council
undoubtedly
intended
its
pronouncement
to
apply;
the
Holy
See
had
appropriated
the
Council
of
Trent’s
declaration
for
a
new
purpose.
While
the
Vatican
thus
ϐ in
healthy
dialogue,
it
instead
chose
to
subordinate
ǡ ϐ relationship
between
the
two
worldviews.
Vatican
ϐ necessary
to
preserve
the
credibility
of
Catholicism,
but
this
stance
really
proceeded
from
their
embracing
ǣ ϐ ͳ͵͵ held
science
and
religion
as
existing
in
a
fundamentally
adversarial
relationship
in
which
only
one
or
the
other
could
triumph.
If
the
Church
had
adopted
more
elastic
views,
the
whole
Galileo
contretemps
–
and
ϐ during
that
period
–
could
have
been
avoided.
In
the
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
ǡ ϐ ϐ ϐ ǡ unfortunate
precedent
for
the
future.
Endnotes 1
Richard
J.
Blackwell,
Behind
the
Scenes
at
Galileo’s
Trial
(Notre
Dame:
University
of
Notre
Dame
Press,
2008),
46. 2
Lorini,
Francesco,
to
Cardinal
Paolo
Sfrondati,
7
February
1615.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
134.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 3
Ibid.,
135..
(As
he
maintains
later,
perhaps
too
strenuously:
“I
am
moved
by
nothing
but
zeal.”
4
Ibid. 5
Ibid. 6
“Consultants’
Report
on
Copernicanism.”
24
February
1616.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
135.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 7
Ibid. 10
Holy
Congregation
of
the
Index.
“Decree
of
the
Index.”
March
5,
1616.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
148-‐50.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989.
9
Ibid. 12
Holy
Congregation
of
the
Index.
“Corrections
of
Copernicus’s
On
the
Revolutions.”
15
May
1620.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
199-‐200.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 13
Guicciardini,
Piero,
to
Cosimo
de’
Medici,
4
March
1616.
Quoted
in
Anibale
Fantoli
Galileo:
For
Copernicanism
and
for
the
Church,
184.
Vatican
City:
Vatican
Observatory
Publications,
1996. 14
Bellarmine,
Robert,
to
Paolo
Foscarini,
12
April
1615.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
68.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 15
Melchior
Inchofer.
“Inchofer’s
Report
on
the
Dialogue.”
17
April
1633.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
263.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 16
Zaccaria
Pasqualigo.
“Pasqualigo’s
Report
on
the
Dialogue.”
17
April
1633.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
275.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 17
Inchofer,
Report
on
the
Dialogue,
263. 18
Holy
Congregation
of
the
Index.
“Galileo’s
Sentence.”
22
June
1633.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
289.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 19
Holy
Congregation,
Corrections,
200. 20
Melchior
Inchofer,
Report
on
the
Dialogue,
266. 21
Holy
Congregation,
Galileo’s
Sentence,
291. 22
Christopher
Scheiner.
“Review
of
Inchofer’s
Tractatus.”
1620.
Quoted
in
Richard
J.
Blackwell
Behind
the
Scenes
at
Galileo’s
Trial,
46.
Notre
Dame:
University
of
Notre
Dame
Press,
2008. 23
Niccolini,
Francesco,
to
Lord
Balì
Cioli.
13
November
1632.
Quoted
in
Maurice
A.
Finocchiaro
The
Galileo
Affair:
A
Documentary
History,
239.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
1989. 24
Blackwell,
Behind
the
Scenes,
47. 25
Ibid.,
47-‐9. 26
Luke
Wadding.
“Approval
of
Inchofer’s
Tractatus.”
1633.
Quoted
in
Richard
J.
Blackwell
Behind
the
Scenes
at
Galileo’s
Trial,
106.
Notre
Dame:
University
of
Notre
Dame
Press,
2008. 27
Melchior
Inchofer.
“Preface
to
the
Tractatus.”
1633.
Quoted
in
Richard
J.
Blackwell
Behind
the
Scenes
at
Galileo’s
Trial,
108.
Notre
Dame:
University
of
Notre
Dame
Press,
2008. 28
Holy
Congregation,
Galileo’s
Sentence,
291. 29
Blackwell,
Behind
the
Scenes,
54.
17
INTERVIEW:
Owen
Gingerich Professor
Emeritus
of
Astronomy ǡ ϐ interested
in
astronomy? I
became
interested
in
astronomy
when
I
was
very,
very
Ǥ ϐ years
old,
the
temperature
was
still
over
a
100
degrees
in
the
house
as
the
sun
set—we
were
living
in
a
small
town
in
Washington,
Iowa—so
she
put
cots
in
the
backyard.
And
we
went
out
and
I
said
“Mommy
what’s
that?”
She
said,
“Those
are
the
stars,
you
often
see
them.”
To
which
I
replied,
“but
I
didn’t
know
they
were
up
all
Ǥdz ϐ Ǥ saw
my
interest
and
brought
the
occasional
books
home
and
eventually
helped
build
a
telescope
out
of
a
mailing
tube,
and
some
spare
lenses
from
the
local
optometrist.
And
I
could
see
the
rings
of
Saturn
with
this,
which
was
very
exciting.
Photo
by
Bachrach
Interviewed by Karl Kmiecik, Harvard ‘10
Was
becoming
a
historian
of
science
immediate,
or
did
it
come
after
becoming
a
professor
in
astronomy
and
astrophysics? After
some
years
of
graduate
study
here.
I
was
drafted,
all
my
colleagues
were
getting
drafted,
but
I
was
a
conscientious
objector,
but
my
draft
board
was
determined
to
give
me
a
hard
time.
So
I
did
my
alternative
service
by
going
to
the
American
University
of
Beirut
to
teach.
And
there
I
also
came
into
contact
with
people
who
were
working
on
the
history
of
Islamic
astronomy. I
was
very
annoyed
to
be
drafted
out
of
my
graduate
work.
But
it
turned
out
eventually
to
be
an
extraordinary
happening.
In
the
mean
time
Sputnik
had
gone
up.
The
whole
scene
changed
here,
because
the
Smithsonian
Astrophysical
Observatory
had
moved
up
here
from
Washington
and
together
Harvard
and
the
Smithsonian
had
the
fastest
computer
in
New
England.
It
was
a
room
full
of
vacuum
tubes.
And
it
had
8000
bytes
of
memory.
That
was
big
in
those
days,
but
trivial
compared
to
you
laptop
here.
Isn’t
it
amazing?
Your
laptop
is
more
powerful
than
that
whole
room
full
of
stuff
that
had
allowed
us
to
do
astrophysics
at
a
level
that
no
one
had
been
able
to
do
before
because
the
computations
were
too
involved.
I
realized
that
everyday
I
was
doing
a
set
of
computations
that
was
in
another
time
an
entire
ϐ was
doing
it
in
minutes
over
and
over
again,
every
time
I
wet
to
work
on
my
project
which
was
analyzing
the
way
ϐ Ǥ
I
got
interested
in
Johannes
Kepler
as
a
result
of
reading
Authur
Koestler’s
The
Sleepwalkers.
I
saw
that
there
was
this
time
that
Kepler
had
said,
“If
you
are
bored
with
this
procedure,
take
pity
on
me,
for
I
carried
it
out
at
least
70
times.”
I
though
wow,
if
you
do
something
so
often
as
that,
it
sounds
like
a
job
for
a
computer.
So
I
programmed
this
for
the
computer
and
found
that
it
could
do
it
almost
instantly,
in
a
matter
of
seconds
and
in
9
tries.
There
was
something
wrong.
Had
Kepler
made
so
many
errors
that
the
process
simply
didn’t
converge?
ϐ relevant
volume
of
manuscripts.
ϐ solution
was
not
at
all
what
I
expected,
but
was
in
fact
a
serious
problem
with
numerical
errors
from
the
original
data
of
Tycho
Brahe
and
that
Kepler
had
a
terrible
time
ϐ Ǥ Eventually
he
got
the
best
possible
result
for
tracking
the
longitude
of
Mars
as
it
went
around
the
sky.
It
was
essentially
an
order
of
magnitude
better
than
what
anybody
had
done
before.
Then
he
discovered
that
when
he
was
looking
at
the
problem
of
latitudes
that
the
whole
thing
fell
apart.
He
said
the
hypothesis
has
gone
up
in
smoke
and
he
had
to
start
over
again.
18 Now
this
was
not
as
radical
a
career
change
as
one
might
suppose.
Basically
I
have
always
interested
in
the
question
of
how
does
science
work?
What
are
its
claims
to
truth?
How
do
these
claims
differ
from
religious
claims
of
truth
for
example?
Today
the
science
religion
dialogue
is
an
interesting
clash
between
the
two
largest
cultural
forces
in
our
civilization. ϐ in
the
history
of
science,
it’s
practice
and
how
it
is
taught
at
Harvard? ϐ was
the
linchpin
of
a
history
of
science
program.
This
has
really
faded
and
there
are
many
more
avenues
that
one
would
explore:
the
relationship
of
science
and
society— in
terms
of
patronage,
the
changing
of
a
male
science
to
opportunities
for
women,
the
aesthetics
of
theories
and
how
that
may
affect
ones
work,
and
so
on.
There
is
much
more
sociology
involved
in
it
now.
There
is
much
less
emphasis
on
textual
analysis,
where
you
take
a
classic
text
and
work
it
in
great
detail.
In
other
words,
the
internal
aspects
of
history
of
science
have
receded
in
interest
and
ϐ become
important.
You
have
spent
considerable
time
working
on
Copernicus’s
De
Revolutionibus.
In
light
of
your
ǡ ϐ ϐ Gutenberg
Bible.
Could
you
elaborate
more
on
this? This
work
has
had
a
lot
of
interest
not
just
by
historians
ϐ Ǥ people
think
bibliography
is
that
list
of
resources
you
put
at
the
end
of
a
paper.
Bibliography
is
the
whole
study
of
the
production
of
books
from
the
writing
editing,
printing,
distribution,
and
so
son.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
interested
in
this
and
so
there
was
interest
in
my
book.
What
did
you
learn
in
the
process
of
your
conducting
your
census? Copernicus
published
the
book
in
the
year
that
he
died,
which
was
1543.
It
has
had
an
unusually
high
survival
rate,
which
means
people
probably
saw
it
as
an
important
classic
early
on
and
they
didn’t
through
one
of
these
things
away
lightly.
When
Copernicus’s
book
was
published
it
was
seen
essentially
as
a
recipe
book
for
calculating
the
positions
of
the
planets,
but
not
to
be
taken
seriously
as
a
physical
description
of
the
world.
If
the
earth
was
spinning
around
every
24
hours,
think
of
the
poor
birds,
think
of
the
rock
you
throw
up,
it
would
end
up
in
another
county.
Besides
not
having
any
physics
to
back
it
up,
Psalm
104
says
“let
the
Lord,
God
set
the
foundation
of
the
earth
that
it
may
not
be
moved
forever.”
Which
seemed
to
be
a
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
wonderful
anti-‐Copernican
proof
text.
It
took
a
very
long
time
for
this
to
be
accepted.
Chasing
down
the
copies
of
Copernicus’s
book
is
not
a
puzzle
like
the
New
York
Times
crosswords
that
you
sit
down
and
do.
The
census
was
not
just
to
count
copies.
It
was
to
look
at
what
people
had
written
in
them
and
how
they
had
studied
it.
It
turned
out
that
they
were
studying
it
exactly
how
I
said.
They
would
look
at
it
as
a
way
of
calculating
the
position
of
planets,
but
not
as
a
physical
description
of
the
universe.
Some
copies
were
clean;
others
were
highly
Ǥ ϐ ϐ Ǥ ϐ more
copies
of
it,
because
someone
who
understood
the
book
and
wrote
a
lot
in
it
would
likely
have
students
who
would
fastidiously
copy
down
his
notes.
The
fun
part
was
ϐ before.
Threading
everything
together
was
lots
of
fun. ϐ boundary
of
religion
and
science? I
was
always
interested
in
and
had
done
reading
in
the
area,
but
had
never
made
much
of
a
public
thing
about
it,
until
I
was
asked
to
give
a
lecture
on
it
to
inaugurate
a
new
lecture
series
at
the
university
of
Pennsylvania.
I
really
carefully
wrote
out
what
I
subsequently
thought
of
as
my
pro-‐Christian,
anti-‐Creationism
lecture.
I
knew
there
would
be
a
lot
of
very
conservative
students
present
for
that,
and
therefore
I
laid
out
the
case
for
an
ancient
and
huge
universe
very
carefully
in
that
lecture.
Since
then
I
have
written
another
lecture
which
I
inaugurated
a
year
ago
at
Cornell
University,
which
I
called
“The
Divine
Handiwork.”
I
have
given
the
lecture
many
times
since
then.
And
that
is
sort
of
a
précis
of
a
book
that
I
hope
to
write
on
evolution
that
will
be
ǡ ǡ ϐ Ǥ to
the
mainstream
Christian
that
is
confused
with
the
extremism
on
both
sides
of
the
spectrum:
the
very
noisy,
shrill,
atheists,
and
the
very
strict
biblical
literalists.
In
your
Nobel
lectures
you
delineate
the
distinction
between
purpose
of
the
universe
and
design
in
creation.
Can
you
further
elaborate
on
that
idea? The
public
relations
people
here
say
that
it
is
dangerous
to
talk
about
intelligent
design
lowercase
“d”
lowercase
“i”
as
opposed
to
the
political
movement
uppercase
‘I”
uppercase
“D.”
They
say
people
won’t
get
it
but
I
think
people
do
get
it
and
other
people
use
the
distinction
too.
I
believe
in
an
intelligent
creator,
and
an
intelligent
creation
and
so
I
have
to
believe
in
some
kind
of
intelligent
design,
but
not
the
kind
that
is
set
as
a
replacement
for
evolution
taught
in
classrooms.
Essentially,
intelligent
design
is
the
ϐ ǡ ǡ ϐ ǡ ϐ Ǥ
19
Eugenics
and
the
Supreme
Court
1900-1945:
An
Internalist
Approach By Fauzia Shaikh, Harvard ‘10 Bioethical
issues
first
came
to
the
forefront
of
politics
in
the
early
twentieth
century,
especially
with
the
growing
popularity
of
the
eugenics
movement.
During
these
years,
laws
mandating
the
sterilization
of
various
denigrated
segments
of
society—the
mentally
ill,
habitual
criminals,
or
sexual
miscreants—
surfaced
in
twenty-‐nine
states.
Citing
the
“cruel
and
unusual
punishment,”
argument,
equal
protection
and
due
process
arguments
based
on
the
Eighth
Amendment
and
Fourteenth
Amendment,
these
laws
were
initially
challenged
at
state
and
federal
level.
In
1927,
however,
the
Supreme
Court
approached
the
issue
of
civilian
eugenical
sterilization
in
Buck
v.
Bell
and
decided
to
give
deference
to
public
interest
upholding
eugenic
legislation.
Taking
a
strong
ideological
stance
with
the
Eugenics
movement,
the
Supreme
Court
dismissed
much
of
the
precedent
set
by
the
lower
courts.
Just
fifteen
years
after
Buck
v.
Bell,
however,
the
Supreme
Court
reconsidered
their
stance
on
sterilization
in
a
case
of
the
sterilization
of
habitual
criminals.
In
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma,
the
Supreme
Court’s
attitude
towards
sterilization
and
eugenics
shifted
to
place
a
greater
emphasis
on
the
equal
protection
of
the
laws,
as
well
as
human
rights.
Upon
analysis
of
both
the
case
law
and
the
responses
within
the
legal
community,
three
distinct
phases
of
the
eugenics
movement
appear.
The
first
phase
spans
from
1900
to
1922,
and
during
these
years,
the
eugenic
movement
emerged
and
sterilization
legislation
could
be
considered
premature.
Within
the
legal
community,
the
initial
response
to
eugenics
was
a
general
distrust
of
the
movement
and
a
defensive
stance
by
its
supporters.
During
1922-‐1935,
however,
the
eugenic
movement
reached
its
height.
This
phase
was
characterized
first
by
mature
legislation
that
sought
to
evade
the
legal
pitfalls
that
plagued
their
predecessors
and
second
by
legal
success—as
well
as
controversy—
surrounding
the
case
Buck
v.
Bell.
The
final
stage
spanned
from
1935-‐
1945,
and
these
years
saw
the
downfall
of
the
eugenics
movement,
which
culminated
in
the
case,
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma.
Analysis
of
case
law
and
articles
written
in
law
reviews
during
this
final
stage
reveals
a
shift
in
the
overall
nature
of
the
Supreme
Court,
leading
to
new
opinions
on
sterilization
cases.
As
this
paper
will
illuminate,
increased
interest
in
laws
associated
with
privacy,
substantive
due
process,
and
equal
protection
doctrines
catalyzed
this
shift—evidenced
by
the
civil
libertarian
view
expressed
in
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma.
Early
Sterilization
Cases
and
Reception
(1907-1922) With
its
beginnings
in
America
in
the
early
twentieth
century,
eugenics
was
an
interdisciplinary
“science”
that
sought
to
apply
Mendelian
genetics
and
Darwin’s
theory
of
evolution
to
bringing
about
societal
change.
Eugenic
scholars
attributed
a
variety
of
social
illnesses
to
hereditary
causes,
from
mental
disorders,
to
hypersexuality,
to
criminality
to
the
vague
“feeble-‐mindedness,”
and
thus
eugenicists
believed
they
could
improve
the
human
race
through
selective
breeding.
1
They
conducted
a
large
amount
of
statistical
research
within
the
field
of
hereditary
genetics
in
order
to
monopolize
on
the
scientific
claim
to
objectivity.
According
to
eugenicists,
if
the
cause
of
social
problems
was
inherent
to
a
certain
group
of
people,
then
halting
the
reproduction
of
these
peoples’
genes,
most
commonly
through
sterilization,
served
as
a
promising
solution
to
social
ills.2 The
eugenic
cause
quickly
gained
a
large
following
among
academics,
psychiatrists,
sociologists,
criminologists,
and
other
influential
members
of
society,
allowing
it
to
transition
from
the
academic
sphere
into
public
policy.3
The
first
law
requiring
sterilization
was
passed
in
1907
in
Indiana,
and
many
states
followed
suit.
By
1922,
fifteen
states
had
passed
a
sterilization
statute
inspired
by
the
Eugenics
movement.4
This
period
from
1907-‐1922
is
considered
the
first
wave
of
sterilization
laws.
These
laws
generally
applied
to
criminals,
but
innocent
citizens
who
were
referred
to
state
institutions
by
municipal
courts
for
various
genetic
defects
like
feeble-‐mindedness,
blindness,
and
epilepsy
were
also
considered
for
sterilization.5
Under
these
laws,
states
established
a
“Board
of
Examiners”
within
the
executive
branch
of
the
state
to
20 oversee
sterilization
procedures
at
state
institutions.
Case
Law
ϐ were
challenged
at
the
state
level
in
the
earlier
years,
the
ϐ Supreme
Court
level
was
the
1912
case
Washington
v.
Feilen.
In
this
case,
the
Supreme
Court
of
Washington
upheld
a
sterilization
statute
for
habitual
criminals
or
criminals
whose
crime
was
of
a
sexual
nature.
The
appellant,
Feilen,
was
convicted
of
statutory
rape,
and
in
addition
to
his
sentence
of
life
imprisonment,
he
was
required
to
be
sterilized.
Feilen
appealed
the
sterilization,
citing
Washington
constitution’s
equivalent
to
the
national
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
clause,
a
part
of
the
Eighth
Amendment.
It
is
important
to
note,
however,
that
Washington
State’s
constitution
only
protected
against
“cruel”
punishment,
not
“cruel
and
unusual”
punishment,
and
after
consideration,
the
court
maintained
that
sterilization
was
not
“cruel
punishment.”
In
order
to
determine
the
medical
detriment
of
sterilization
to
the
individual,
the
court’s
opinion
cited
Dr.
H.
C.
Sharp,
a
physician
at
the
Indiana
State
Reformatory.
Sharp
described
the
sterilization
procedure
as
“very
simple,”
and,
making
his
eugenic
interest
in
sterilization
very
clear,
further
posited
sterilization
as
a
“method
of
relief
to
society.”
The
Washington
State
Supreme
Court
referenced
these
physicians
not
directly,
but
an
article
on
hereditary
criminality
and
asexualization.
This
article
highlighted
only
the
credentials
of
the
eugenics
movement,
ignoring
all
critiques.
The
court’s
usage
of
these
various
eugenicist
articles
and
institutions
demonstrated
that,
like
Sharp,
the
Washington
State
Supreme
Court
had
entrenched
eugenic
interests.6
ͳͻͳ͵ǡ ϐ overturned
by
the
New
Jersey
Supreme
Court
in
Smith
vs.
Board
of
Examiners,
which
determined
an
infringement
according
to
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
equal
protection
clause
in
1913.
The
appellant,
Alice
Smith,
was
an
epileptic
at
the
New
Jersey
State
Village
for
Epileptics,
and
her
case
examined
the
roles
of
class
divides
in
eugenic
policy.
Since
the
laws
only
applied
to
charitable
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
state
institution
that
housed
various
“defective”
groups,
wealthy
people
with
the
same
conditions,
like
epilepsy,
were
not
required
to
be
sterilized.
After
reviewing
the
case,
the
court
determined
that
since
people
with
the
same
condition
were
being
treated
differently
based
on
class,
this
piece
of
legislation
denied
those
sterilized
of
the
“equal
protection
of
the
law.”
Criticizing
sterilization
as
“a
suppression
of
personal
liberty,
and
a
possible
menace
to
the
life
of
the
individual
who
must
submit
to
it,”
the
court’s
humanitarian
perspective
on
sterilization
enhanced
the
argument.7 Smith
v.
Board
of
Examiners
and
Washington
v.
Feilen ϐ ǡ and
the
difference
in
language
between
the
New
Jersey
State
Supreme
Court
and
the
Washington
State
Supreme
Court
is
notable.
Where
the
Washington
Supreme
Court
saw
the
eugenics
movement
as
a
“method
of
relief,”
the
New
Jersey
Supreme
Court
described
eugenics
as
Dz ϐ Ǥdz ǡ ǡ to
recognize
that
the
Smith
v.
Board
of
Examiners
did
not
deal
with
criminals,
and
there
was
generally
more
sympathy
for
those
with
conditions
like
epilepsy
than
criminals.
As
we
shall
see,
these
two
cases
set
the
foundation
for
later
cases
concerning
both
criminal
and
non-‐ criminal
sterilization
statutes.
A
criminal
sterilization
statute
was
reviewed
again
in
a
district
court
in
Iowa
in
the
case
Davis
v.
Berry
in
1914.
This
Iowa
statute
differed
from
the
Washington
statute
in
that
it
was
a
“general
eugenic”
statute,
seeking
the
sterilization
of
both
criminals,
as
well
as
non-‐criminals.
The
district
court
in
Davis
v.
Berry
overruled
the
law
and
gave
an
injunction
to
the
appellant,
Davis,
against
a
law
that
mandated
sterilization
for
repeat
felons.
The
court
cited
both
the
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
clause
of
the
Constitution
as
well
as
the
due
process
clause
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
In
addition
to
including
a
proper
procedural
hearing
guaranteed
by
the
Washington
state
statute,
the
Iowa
district
court
distinguished
Davis
v.
Berry
from
Washington
v.
Feilen
by
citing
the
sexual
nature
of
the
crime
in
the
latter
case.
21 Although
questioning
the
Washington
v.
and
equal
protection
clauses.
In
these
cases
like
Smith
v.
Feilen
precedent
with
regards
to
cruel
and
unusual
Board
of
Examiners,
while
the
equal
protection
claim
was
punishment,
Davis
v.
Berry
primarily
overruled
the
stronger,
substantive
due
process
singled
out
the
right
statute
on
the
basis
of
procedural
due
process,
since
to
procreate
as
a
liberty
interest
in
order
to
give
higher
there
was
no
hearing
before
sterilization.
A
new
statute
scrutiny
to
the
equal
protection
claim.11
Thus,
in
the
case
was
passed
in
1915
that
included
a
hearing
to
circumvent
of
non-‐criminal
sterilization,
the
equal
protection
and
the
due
process
requirement
of
Davis
v.
Berry
allowing
substantive
due
process
arguments
worked
together.
for
eugenical
sterilization
to
continue
as
long
as
a
fair
The
use
of
substantive
due
process
as
early
as
1913
was
hearing
is
provided.8
interesting,
however,
as
substantive
Regarding
sterilization,
In
1918,
the
case
Mickle
v.
due
process
was
only
formally
Henrich
in
the
Nevada
Supreme
the
opinion
stated,
“The
created
by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Court
overturned
a
general
physical
suffering
may
1905,
and
then
for
an
economic
eugenical
sterilization
statute
by
not
be
so
great,
but
context.
In
Lochner
v.
New
York,
the
both
the
equal
protection
and
cruel
that
is
not
the
only
test
Supreme
Court
established
a
“right
cruel
punishment;
to
contract”
through
the
general
and
unusual
punishment
clause.
of
humiliation,
the
right
to
“life,
liberty
and
property”
Mickle
v.
Henrich
held
that
statutes
the
of
pure
eugenical
sterilization
of
degradation,
the
mental
in
the
due
process
clause.12
Despite
are
always
the
cases’
non-‐economic
nature,
the
“defectives,”
as
in
Smith
vs.
the
suffering
Board
of
Examiners,
violated
the
present
and
known
by
all
New
Jersey
Supreme
Court
used
the
equal
protection
clause,
whereas
the
public,
and
will
follow
anti-‐progressive
Lochner
worldview
statutes
of
punitive
eugenical
him
wheresoever
he
may
to
expand
civil
liberties
rather
than
sterilization
for
criminal
offenders
uphold
economic
interests.
This
go.
”
violated
Nevada’s
cruel
and
unusual
usage
foreshadowed
the
progressive
punishment
clause.
The
Nevada
State
Supreme
Court
civil
libertarian
use
of
substantive
due
process. manuvered
around
the
opinion
in
Washington
vs.
Feilen,
Commentary
in
Legal
Literature noting
that
Washington
State
only
had
a
constitutional
provision
against
cruel
punishment,
whereas
Nevada’s
In
this
early
phase
of
eugenic
legislation,
the
constitution
had
a
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
clause.
general
response
to
the
movement
was
of
distrust
and
Regarding
sterilization,
the
opinion
stated,
“The
physical
skepticism.
The
claim
that
certain
members
of
society
suffering
may
not
be
so
great,
but
that
is
not
the
only
test
Dz ϐ ǡdz of
cruel
punishment;
the
humiliation,
the
degradation,
was
troublesome,
even
if
theoretically
corroborated
the
mental
suffering
are
always
present
and
known
by
ϐ Ǥ all
the
public,
and
will
follow
him
wheresoever
he
may
ϐ ͳͻͲͺǡ go.
”
Expanding
the
conception
of
“cruelty”
to
include
were
defeated
as
bills.13 ǡ ϐ mental
suffering,
this
case
legitimized
the
cruel
and
Indiana
sterilization
statutes
were
passed,
the
eugenics
unusual
punishment
claim
to
sterilization
statutes,
trend
had
amassed
enough
publicly-‐accepted—even
and
reinforced
the
equal
protection
claim
against
non-‐ Ȅ ϐ criminal
sterilization.9 means
of
defeating
eugenics
was
through
legal
means.
Eugenicists
themselves
did
not
establish
any
ϐ clear
distinction
between
those
criminals
and
innocent
in
this
period,
state
supreme
courts
declared
six
citizens.
To
eugenicists,
these
populations
were
one
unconstitutional
by
1922.14
and
the
same,
and
the
treatment
of
those
innocent
of
Despite
the
importance
of
legal
argumentation
any
crime
was
seen
as
the
prevention
of
crime.
This
against
eugenics,
there
are
few
examples
in
legal
distinction
however
was
very
important
in
the
legal
literature
from
this
period
that
argue
against
eugenical
argumentation
against
eugenicist
statutes.
Punitive
Ǥ ϐ sterilization
cases,
like
Washington
v.
Feilen
and
Davis
v.
no
prominent
legal
precedent
for
dealing
with
civil
Berry,
tended
to
make
“cruel
and
unusual
punishment”
libertarian,
human
rights
issues
that
were
not
addressed
claims
based
on
the
eighth
amendment,
as
well
as
ϐ Ǥ Lochner
v.
New
York
procedural
due
process
claims.10
As
criminality
was
did
set
the
precedent
in
1905
for
broader
interpretation
generally
dealt
with
on
an
individual
basis
and
with
of
the
Constitution
and
arguments
based
on
autonomy,
less
sympathy,
the
equal
protection
and
substantive
due
its
economic
application
of
such
precedent
did
not
allow
process
claims
were
seldom
appealed
to.
Conversely,
ϐ cases
for
innocent
yet
“defective”
citizens
relied
heavily
liberties.15
on
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
substantive
due
process
However,
Charles
A.
Boston,
a
prominent
New
22 York
 
  lawyer
 
  and
 
  chairperson
 
  of
 
  the
 
  American
 
  Bar
 
 Association,
 
 undertook
 
 the
 
 task
 
 of
 
 legally
 
 arguing
 
  against
 
  eugenical
 
  sterilization
 
  laws
 
  in
 
  his
 
  article,
 
  “A
 
  Protest
 
  Against
 
  Laws
 
  Authorizing
 
  the
 
  Sterilization
 
  of
 
  Criminals
 
 and
 
 Imbeciles.�
 
 Published
 
 in
 
 1913
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Journal
 
  of
 
 the
 
 American
 
 Institute
 
 of
 
 Criminal
 
 Law
 
 &
 
 Criminology,
 
  his
 
 article
 
 criticizes
 
 the
 
 Indiana
 
 sterilization
 
 statute
 
 on
 
  a
 
  number
 
  of
 
  grounds.
 
  Reminiscent
 
  of
 
  Revolutionary
 
  War
 
 era
 
 protest
 
 pamphlets
 
 against
 
 England,
 
 the
 
 article
 
  began
 
 by
 
 comparing
 
 sterilization
 
 laws
 
 to
 
 the
 
 barbaric
 
  punishments
 
 of
 
 medieval
 
 England.
 
 It
 
 goes
 
 on
 
 to
 
 portray
 
  a
 
 general
 
 sense
 
 of
 
 dismay
 
 with
 
 the
 
 eugenics
 
 movement
 
  by
 
 identifying
 
 the
 
 inherent
 
 ambiguity
 
 and
 
 arbitrariness
 
  of
 
  the
 
  eugenic
 
  claim
 
  that
 
  “heredity
 
  plays
 
  a
 
  most
 
  important
 
 part
 
 in
 
 the
 
 transmission
 
 of
 
 crime,
 
 idiocy
 
 and
 
  ‹Â?„‡…‹Ž‹–›Ǥdz ‘•–‘Â? Â?‡Â?–‹‘Â?‡† Š‹• •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Â?‹•‰‹˜‹Â?‰• with
 
  eugenic
 
  doctrine
 
  by
 
  taking
 
  an
 
  environmentalist
 
  ÂƒÂ’Â’Â”Â‘ÂƒÂ…ÂŠÇĄ „—– “—ƒŽ‹Ď?‹‡† Š‹• †‘—„–• ™‹–Š –Š‡ ˆƒ…– –Šƒ– ‹– was
 
 too
 
 contested
 
 and
 
 expensive
 
 to
 
 make
 
 good
 
 policy.
 
  Setting
 
  science
 
  aside,
 
  Boston
 
  concluded
 
  his
 
  protest
 
 with
 
 a
 
 constitutional
 
 argument.
 
 To
 
 make
 
 a
 
 moral
 
  and
 
  legal
 
  case
 
  against
 
  sterilization,
 
  he
 
  appealed
 
  to
 
  the
 
  equal
 
 protection
 
 of
 
 the
 
 laws
 
 citing
 
 the
 
 helplessness
 
 of
 
  the
 
 victims,
 
 and
 
 constitutional
 
 protection
 
 against
 
 cruel
 
  and
 
  unusual
 
  punishment.
 
  He
 
  referred
 
  to
 
  the
 
  spirit
 
  of
 
  the
 
 constitution
 
 in
 
 preventing
 
 arbitrary
 
 action,
 
 writing
 
  –Šƒ– •‘…‹‡–› ™ƒ• Dz…‘Â?ˆ”‘Â?–‡† ™‹–Š ƒ Â?‡™ Ď?Ž‘‘† ‘ˆ ÂŽÂƒÂ™Â•ÇĄ which
 
  leaves
 
  the
 
  personal
 
  liberty
 
  and
 
  a
 
  part
 
  of
 
  life
 
  of
 
  individual
 
  and
 
  posterity
 
  to
 
  the
 
  arbitrary
 
  judgment
 
  and
 
  guess,
 
  if
 
  not
 
  mere
 
  whim
 
  or
 
  caprice,
 
  of
 
  possibly
 
  unskilled
 
  and
 
  unsympathetic
 
  judges,
 
  without
 
  any
 
  of
 
  the
 
  substantial
 
  safeguards‌
 
  [inherited]
 
  from
 
  the
 
  English
 
  constitution
 
  and
 
  the
 
  founders
 
  of
 
  this
 
  nation.�
 
  Boston’s
 
  appeals
 
  to
 
  privacy
 
  or
 
  “personal
 
  liberty�
 
  were
 
  characteristic
 
 of
 
 the
 
 libertarian
 
 conservative
 
 criticism
 
  to
 
  the
 
  eugenics
 
  movement
 
  that
 
  condemned
 
  the
 
  interference
 
  of
 
  government
 
  with
 
  the
 
  private
 
  sphere.
 
  While
 
  the
 
  ideological
 
  repugnance
 
  to
 
  sterilization
 
  was
 
  grasped
 
  by
 
  Boston,
 
  this
 
  repugnance
 
  did
 
  not
 
  yet
 
  Ď?‹– ™‹–Š‹Â? –Š‡ †‘Â?‹Â?ƒÂ?– ‹Â?–‡”’”‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ ˆ”ƒÂ?‡™‘”Â? of
 
  the
 
  Constitution,
 
  hence
 
  Boston’s
 
  legal
 
  attack
 
  on
 
  eugenics.16 The
 
  defeat
 
  of
 
  a
 
  number
 
  of
 
  early
 
  sterilization
 
  statutes
 
  during
 
  this
 
  phase
 
  prompted
 
  a
 
  defensive
 
  response
 
  from
 
  the
 
  eugenics
 
  movement.
 
  In
 
  his
 
  1914
 
  ÂƒÂ”Â–Â‹Â…ÂŽÂ‡ÇĄ Dz –‡”‹Ž‹œƒ–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ Â?Ď?‹–ǥdz ‹Â? –Š‡ ‹”‰‹Â?‹ƒ Ī Review,
 
 J.
 
 Miller
 
 Kenyon
 
 defended
 
 eugenic
 
 doctrine
 
 from
 
  opinions
 
  like
 
  that
 
  of
 
  Charles
 
  A.
 
  Boston
 
  and
 
  from
 
  other
 
  early
 
  cases
 
  that
 
  questioned
 
  the
 
  legitimacy
 
  of
 
  eugenics.
 
  Pushing
 
 for
 
 a
 
 more
 
 textual
 
 interpretation
 
 of
 
 the
 
 clauses,
 
  Kenyon
 
 rejected
 
 the
 
 broad,
 
 substantive
 
 interpretation
 
  of
 
  the
 
  due
 
  process
 
  and
 
  equal
 
  protection
 
  clauses
 
  put
 
  forth
 
  in
 
  Boston’s
 
  article
 
  and
 
  in
 
  the
 
  case
 
  Smith
 
  v.
 
  Board
 
  of
 
  Examiners.
 
  He
 
  asserted
 
  that,
 
  “Sterilization
 
  statutes
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
do
 
  not
 
  deprive
 
  a
 
  person
 
  of
 
  life,
 
  liberty,
 
  or
 
  property
 
  in
 
  providing
 
  for
 
  the
 
  operation.
 
  Much
 
  less
 
  do
 
  they
 
  do
 
  so
 
  without
 
 ‘due
 
 process
 
 of
 
 law,’�
 
 since
 
 sterilization
 
 patients
 
  Â?—•– „‡ Ç˛ÂƒÂ†ÂŒÂ—Â†Â‰Â‡Â†Çł —Â?Ď?‹–Ǥ ˆ–‡” Š‹• †‡ˆ‡Â?•‡ ‘ˆ ‡—‰‡Â?‹…•ǥ Kenyon
 
  referred
 
  to
 
  the
 
  preamble
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Constitution
 
  and
 
  proposed
 
  an
 
  argument
 
  for
 
  the
 
  constitutionality
 
  of
 
 eugenical
 
 sterilization.
 
 He
 
 appealed
 
 to
 
 the
 
 “general
 
  welfare,�
 
  asking,
 
  “Can
 
  there
 
  be
 
  the
 
  full
 
  blessings
 
  of
 
  Ž‹„‡”–›ǥ ‘” ˆ—ŽŽ †‘Â?‡•–‹… –”ƒÂ?“—‹Ž‹–›ǥ ‹ˆ –Š‘•‡ …‹˜‹ŽŽ› —Â?Ď?‹– are
 
  allowed
 
  to
 
  procreate
 
  their
 
  species
 
  and
 
  scatter
 
  their
 
  kind
 
  here
 
  and
 
  there
 
  and
 
  everywhere
 
  amongst
 
  our
 
  people?�
 
  Kenyon
 
  presented
 
  the
 
  mental
 
  health
 
  problems
 
  of
 
  society
 
  with
 
  the
 
  urgency
 
  of
 
  a
 
  national
 
  security
 
  emergency,
 
  for
 
  which
 
  sterilization
 
  was
 
  the
 
  only
 
  “remedy�
 
  that
 
  could
 
  “overcome
 
  the
 
  evil
 
  and
 
  •–‡Â? –Š‡ Ď?Ž‘™ ‘ˆ –Š‹• ”‹•‹Â?‰ –‹†‡dz ‘ˆ ‹Â?•ƒÂ?‹–›Ǥ ‡Â?›‘Â? believed
 
 that
 
 the
 
 eugenics
 
 movement
 
 was
 
 so
 
 necessary
 
  in
 
  preventing
 
  the
 
  degradation
 
  of
 
  society
 
  that
 
  he
 
  even
 
  advocated
 
  for
 
  a
 
  constitutional
 
  amendment
 
  for
 
  eugenic
 
  doctrine
 
 if
 
 it
 
 was
 
 to
 
 be
 
 founded
 
 unconstitutional
 
 by
 
 the
 
  Supreme
 
 Court.17
 
 
 
  ƒ”Ž› …ƒ•‡• ƒÂ?† Ž‡‰ƒŽ Ž‹–‡”ƒ–—”‡ ”‡Ď?Ž‡…– –Š‡ ‹Â?‹–‹ƒŽ hesitance
 
 of
 
 the
 
 law
 
 community
 
 to
 
 accept
 
 the
 
 eugenics
 
  movement.
 
  However,
 
  without
 
  legal
 
  precedence,
 
  the
 
  critical
 
  response
 
  to
 
  eugenical
 
  sterilization
 
  in
 
  legal
 
  literature
 
  from
 
  1907-Ââ€?1922
 
  was
 
  not
 
  particularly
 
  coordinated.
 
  Charles
 
  A.
 
  Boston
 
  confronted
 
  the
 
  eugenics
 
  movement
 
  with
 
  methodological
 
  criticism
 
  by
 
  ƒ†˜‘…ƒ–‹Â?‰ ƒÂ? ‡Â?˜‹”‘Â?Â?‡Â?–ƒŽ‹•– •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… ’ƒ”ƒ†‹‰Â?ÇĄ ĥ well
 
  as
 
  constitutional
 
  and
 
  legal
 
  criticism.
 
  Challenging
 
  legal
 
 opinions
 
 and
 
 less
 
 authoritative
 
 opinions
 
 of
 
 justice
 
  and
 
  human
 
  rights,
 
  advocates
 
  of
 
  the
 
  eugenic
 
  movement
 
  responded
 
  to
 
  eugenic
 
  opponents
 
  with
 
  the
 
  power
 
  of
 
  •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Dz–”—–ŠǤdz Š‡› …Žƒ‹Â?‡† ‘„Œ‡…–‹˜‹–› ™‹–Š –Š‡‹” •–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽ ƒÂ?† •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Â†ÂƒÂ–ÂƒÇĄ ƒÂ?† –Š—• –Š‡•‡ ‡—‰‡Â?‹… ’”‘’‘Â?‡Â?–• ”‡Ž‹‡† ‘Â? ’—„Ž‹… ƒ……‡’–ƒÂ?…‡ ‘ˆ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… claims
 
 to
 
 defend
 
 the
 
 eugenics
 
 movement
 
 from
 
 the
 
 legal
 
  arguments
 
 voiced
 
 throughout
 
 the
 
 early
 
 phase.18
 
 
Buck
 
 v.
 
 Bell
 
 and
 
 the
 
 Triumph
 
 of
 
 the
 
  Eugenics
 
 Movement
 
 (1922-Â1935) Eugenic
 
  statutes,
 
  unsuccessful
 
  bills,
 
  case
 
  laws
 
  and
 
  commentaries
 
  were
 
  all
 
  documented
 
  by
 
  Dr.
 
  Harry
 
  Laughlin
 
 in
 
 his
 
 1922
 
 book
 
 Eugenical
 
 Sterilization
 
 in
 
 the
 
  United
 
 StatesǤ ‹”‡…–‘” ‘ˆ –Š‡ —‰‡Â?‹…• ‡…‘”† ˆĎ?‹…‡ ƒ– the
 
 renowned
 
 eugenics
 
 stronghold
 
 in
 
 Cold
 
 Spring
 
 Harbor,
 
  New
 
  York,
 
  Laughlin
 
  sought
 
  to
 
  detail
 
  the
 
  constitutional
 
  strengths
 
  and
 
  weaknesses
 
  of
 
  eugenics
 
  legislation.
 
  In
 
  so
 
  doing,
 
  he
 
  hoped
 
  to
 
  create
 
  legislation
 
  that
 
  would
 
  transcend
 
  legal
 
  and
 
  constitutional
 
  inquiry.
 
  He
 
  also
 
  sought
 
  to
 
  amass
 
  data
 
  that
 
  would
 
  prove
 
  to
 
  lawmakers
 
  and
 
  courts
 
  the
 
  “success�
 
  of
 
  eugenics
 
  legislation.
 
  In
 
  his
 
  „‘‘Â?ÇĄ ƒ—‰ŠŽ‹Â? •’‡…‹Ď?‹‡† –Š‡ Â?ƒÂ?†ƒ–‘”› ”‡“—‹”‡Â?‡Â?–•
23 of
an
“effective”
law,
and
includes
a
model
law
that
evaded
the
pitfalls
of
early
eugenic
statutes.
In
this
law,
Laughlin
included
a
hearing
before
sterilization
in
or-‐ der
to
preclude
claims
to
procedural
due
process
as
in
Davis
v.
Berry.
Likewise,
he
required
that
the
laws
apply
ϐ ǡ -‐ table
institutions
in
order
to
prevent
equal
protection
arguments
as
seen
in
Smith
v.
Board
of
Examiners.
Laws
enacted
after
1922
followed
the
model
Laughlin
creat-‐ ed.19
Since
the
eugenics
movement
claimed
to
be
on
ϐ ǡ sought
to
dismantle
this
claim.
Thus,
as
the
statutes
matured
and
strengthened
legally
and
politically,
the
ϐ increasingly
being
challenged
by
new
research.
In
his
1926
article,
“The
Fallacy
of
Eugenics,”
psychologist
J.
B.
Eggen
criticized
the
methodology
and
science
behind
Ǥ ϐ psychological
schools
of
thought
that
could
explain
mental
illnesses,
and
denounced
the
tendency
of
eugenicists
to
attribute
everything
dealing
with
the
mind
to
genetic
causes.
He
particularly
criticized
their
neglect
of
the
effects
of
sociological
conditioning,
highlighting
his
own
preference
for
the
environmentalist
progressive
view.
He
agreed
with
the
progressive
social
platform
that
sought
to
strengthen
society
and
use
government
power
to
alleviate
social
problems,
but
argued
that
eugenical
sterilization
was
not
an
appropriate
cure.
This
ϐ ϐ Ǥ ϐ the
cases
that
directly
followed,
like
Buck
v.
Bell,
it
was
ϐ criticism
of
eugenic
doctrine.20
Buck
v.
Bell
and
its
Reception ϐ Supreme
Court
in
the
case
Buck
v.
Bell.
Carrie
Buck,
a
seventeen-‐year-‐old
girl
from
Charlottesville,
Virginia,
ϐ Virginia
Sterilization
Act
of
1924,
a
law
that
followed
Laughlin’s
guidelines
for
effective
legislation.
Born
to
a
feeble-‐minded
mother
and
having
given
birth
to
a
feeble-‐minded
daughter,
Buck
herself
was
diagnosed
with
feeble-‐mindedness
and
sexual
promiscuity
at
a
hearing
for
her
sterilization.
The
ambiguous
diagnosis
of
“feeble-‐mindedness,”
meant
to
apply
to
those
of
below
average
IQ
was
enough
under
this
statute
to
warrant
her
sterilization.
Her
counsel
appealed
the
decision,
citing
the
due
process
and
equal
protection
clauses
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment.
They
challenged
the
1924
ǡ ϐ and
advocating
for
the
“inherent
right
of
mankind
to
go
through
life
without
mutilation
of
organs”—
which
they
presented
as
a
personal
liberty.
The
defense
responded
to
these
arguments
by
simply
disagreement.
ϐ ǡ state
power
to
infringe
on
one’s
liberty
in
the
interest
of
state,
given
the
proper
procedural
hearing
ensuring
due
process
of
the
law,
and
second,
that
the
eugenic
ϐ Ǥ
The
decision
written
by
Justice
Holmes
emphatically
agreed
with
the
defendant.
Seeking
a
rational
basis
for
the
law,
Holmes
rebuffed
the
Fourteenth
Amendment
due
process
and
equal
protection
claims.
The
judge
stated,
“We
have
seen
more
than
once
that
the
public
welfare
may
call
upon
the
best
citizens
for
their
lives.
It
would
be
strange
if
it
could
not
call
upon
those
who
already
sap
the
strength
ϐ ǡ to
be
such
by
those
concerned,
in
order
to
prevent
our
being
swamped
with
incompetence.”
He
added,
“Three
generations
of
imbeciles
is
enough.”
Eight
of
the
nine
justices
endorsed
Holmes’s
opinion,
and
the
lone
dissenter,
Justice
Pierce
Butler,
did
not
even
write
a
dissenting
opinion.
This
Supreme
Court’s
collective
agreement
was
unusual
for
a
number
of
reasons.
Firstly,
the
opinion
barely
referenced
any
previous
case
law;
it
only
cited
arguments
made
by
the
plaintiff
or
the
defense.
Despite
the
contentious
debates
about
sterilization
prior
to
this,
and
the
varied
outcomes
of
decisions
on
the
state
level,
Holmes’
opinion
treated
sterilization
like
a
non-‐issue.
It
held
that
there
was
no
substantive
difference
in
terms
of
the
deprivation
of
life,
liberty
and
property
between
compulsory
sterilization
and
compulsory
vaccination.
He
also
disclaimed
the
equal
protection
clause
as
“the
usual
last
resort
of
constitutional
arguments.”
This
was
a
highly
controversial
point
to
make,
especially
since
the
equal
protection
clause
had
been
successfully
invoked
several
times
before
by
states
seeking
to
overturn
compulsory
sterilization
laws.
Critics
of
eugenics
picked
up
on
the
inconsistencies
that
Buck
v.
Bell
presented
in
its
opinion.
In
a
1928
article
in
the
Illinois
Law
Review,
J.
H.
Landman,
a
professor
at
the
City
College
of
New
York,
wrote,
“The
jurist
[was]
disconcerted
by
the
absence
of
citations
to
support
its
legal
principles
and
the
psychiatrist
and
sociologist
are
equally
surprised
ϐ eugenics.”
Asserting
that
Holmes’
opinions
normally
“breathe
an
air
of
realism,
humanity
and
progress,”
Landman
regarded
this
case
as
“unusual.”
Fearing
that
states
would
take
the
Buck
v.
Bell
decision
as
a
license
to
run
wild
with
the
eugenicist
platform,
Landman
ǡ Dz ϐ before
many
states
will
enact
similar
legislation.”
24
Jacob
Broches
Aronoff,
a
member
of
the
New
Bar
and
eugenics
supporter
who
had
been
disconcerted
by
the
early
failures
of
eugenic
legislation,
welcomed
the
opinion
in
Buck
v.
Bell.
In
his
1927
article
in
St.
John’s
Law
Review,
Aronoff
eagerly
anticipated
a
change
in
the
judicial
and
popular
attitude
towards
such
legislation.
Describing
Holmes
as
having
a
“social
and
political
philosophy
[that]
[was]
essentially
humane,”
Aronoff
credited
him
for
getting
the
citizenry
to
reevaluate
the
legal
and
non-‐legal
objections
to
eugenic
legislation.
Viewing
Holmes’
opinion
as
a
turning
point
for
eugenics.
Aronoff
believed
that
now
people
would
begin
to
realize
that
eugenics
was
not
malicious,
but
a
procedure
dedicated
to
the
good
of
society.28
simultaneously
losing
its
scientific
credibility.
By
the
mid
1930s,
eugenics
research
came
under
increasing
scrutiny,
and
independent
analysis
revealed
that
many
of
the
eugenic
studies
substantiating
the
doctrine
were
deeply
flawed.32
In
1936,
Dr.
Abraham
Myerson
and
the
Committee
of
the
American
Neurological
Association
for
the
Investigation
of
Eugenical
Sterilization
came
out
with
a
report
reevaluating
a
number
of
claims
made
by
eugenicists.
The
report
found
no
hereditary
element
in
criminality;
thus,
it
did
not
recommend
sterilization
for
criminality,
but
did
recommend
voluntary
sterilization
laws
for
specific
serious
neurological
diseases
like
schizophrenia,
manic-‐depressive
psychosis,
severe
forms
of
feeble-‐ mindedness,
and
possibly
epilepsy.33
Upon
evidence
of
the
scientific
flaws—
and
even
falsification
of
data— The
Aftermath
of
Buck
v.
Bell underlying
eugenic
doctrine,
the
Carnegie
Institution
State-‐level
sterilization
cases
following
Buck
v.
Bell
of
Washington
withdrew
its
funding
for
the
Eugenics
upheld
the
precedent
set
by
Holmes.
The
first
case
Record
Office
in
1939.34
to
upheld
Buck
v.
Bell
in
reference
to
a
punitive
Furthermore,
in
the
late
1930s,
legal
literature
sterilization
law
for
repeat
often
cited
eugenics
in
relation
offenders
was
Davis
v.
Walton.
to
the
rise
of
the
totalitarian
Here
in
1930,
the
Supreme
National
Socialist
Party
in
Court
of
Utah
decided
to
The
report
found
no
hereditary
Germany.
For
example,
in
reject
the
cruel
and
unusual
element
in
criminality;
thus,
it
did
his
article
“Law
in
the
Third
punishment
claim,
followed
not
recommend
sterilization
for
Reich,”
Karl
Lowenstein,
the
precedent
of
Washington
professor
of
political
science
v.
Feilen
rather
than
Mickle
v.
criminality,
but
did
recommend
at
Yale
University,
historically
Henrich,
and
then
deferred
voluntary
sterilization
laws
for
linked
the
policy
of
eugenics
to
Buck
v.
Bell
in
its
rejection
ϔ to
the
extreme
anti-‐Semitism
of
equal
protection
and
due
of
the
Nazi
party
through
process
claims.
Interestingly,
diseases
like
schizophrenia,
manic- the
“race
myth
of
blood
and
however,
while
the
case
depressive
psychosis,
severe
forms
soil.”35
The
involvement
of
upheld
the
law,
it
overturned
the
eugenics
movement
in
the
sterilization
of
the
of
feeble-mindedness,
and
possibly
the
horrifying
policies
of
appellant,
Esau
Walton.
The
epilepsy. Nazi
Germany
thus
alienated
court
concluded
that
Walton’s
people
from
movement.
crimes
(larceny
and
sodomy)
Even
certain
progressive
were
not
hereditary.
As
such,
institutions
that
had
previously
worked
hand
in
hand
Davis
v.
Walton
was
essentially
upholding
the
legal
with
eugenic
institutions,
like
the
Juvenile
Protective
argument
for
sterilization
while
rejecting
its
scientific
Agency,
sought
to
distance
themselves
from
their
foundation;
it
questioned
the
hereditary
nature
of
eugenic
past
as
a
result
of
the
rise
of
Nazism.36
criminality.
While
this
one
exemption
is
noteworthy,
In
addition
to
the
rise
of
Nazi
Germany,
the
it
is
also
important
to
note
that
the
number
of
1930s
also
witnessed
the
economic
crises
of
the
Great
sterilizations
per
year
increased
rapidly
after
Buck
Depression,
which
significantly
altered
the
political
v.
Bell.
Thus,
as
far
as
precedent
and
policy
are
concerned,
Buck
v.
Bell
was
a
victory
for
the
Eugenics
landscape
of
the
United
States.
The
election
of
1932,
took
place
in
the
midst
of
the
Great
Depression,
movement. saw
the
realignment
of
many
traditional
voting
blocks
with
the
formation
of
the
New
Deal
Coalition
The
Fall
of
the
Eugenics
under
Franklin
Delano
Roosevelt.
The
progressives
Movement
(1935-1945) were
one
such
voting
block
that
realigned
with
the
While
the
eugenics
movement
was
politically
and
Democratic
Party
(whereas
they
used
to
generally
legally
victorious
in
the
aftermath
of
Buck
v.
Bell,
it
was
vote
Republican).
By
joining
the
New
Deal
Coalition,
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
25 the
progressives
thereby
joined
forces
with
racial
and
ethnic
minorities.
37
In
doing
so,
it
was
clear
that
by
the
1930s,
progressives
were
no
longer
closely
aligned
with
nativist
policies
of
eugenics.
Furthermore
dur-‐ ing
his
presidency
from
1933
to
1945,
Franklin
Del-‐ ano
Roosevelt
was
able
to
catalyze
a
major
change
in
the
Supreme
Court,
as
well.
By
the
time
of
the
Stone
court’s
eugenics
decision
in
1942,
every
member
of
the
Supreme
Court
was
appointed
into
their
position
by
Franklin
Delano
Roosevelt.38
This
change
in
the
compo-‐ sition
of
the
court
allowed
for
a
change
in
judicial
inter-‐ pretation
and
the
development
of
civil
liberties.39
The
Rise
of
Civil
Libertarianism A
judicial
philosophy
aimed
to
protect
the
fundamental
rights
guaranteed
to
the
individual
from
governmental
intrusion
civil
libertarianism
was
legally
established
by
Justice
Harlan
Fiske
Stone
in
the
famous
footnote
four
of
the
1938
case
United
States
v.
Carolene
Products
Co.
Stone
sought
to
provide
higher
scrutiny
for
cases
dealing
with
fundamental
rights
as
well
as
those
that
dealt
with
ϐ Dz Ǥdz footnote
essentially
applied
the
idea
of
rights
based
autonomy
derived
from
Lochner
to
civil
liberties.40
Under
the
civil
libertarian
world
view,
eugenic
sterilization
would
be
a
clear
abuse
of
government
power;
for
as
stated
in
Smith
v.
Board
of
Examiners,
the
right
to
procreate
was
a
“personal
liberty”
and
thus
laws
infringing
it
would
be
subject
to
strict
scrutiny.
Eugenical
sterilization
was
dangerous
because
not
only
does
it
infringe
on
one’s
personal
liberty,
it
does
so
at
the
expense
of
a
relatively
voiceless
minority.
Civil
Libertarianism
in
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma The
Supreme
Court
reconsidered
its
stance
towards
sterilization
and
eugenics
in
the
case
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma
in
1942.41
Skinner
was
a
repeat
criminal
offender,
once
for
stealing
chickens
and
twice
for
larceny.
After
a
trial,
the
jury
decided
he
was
a
habitual
criminal,
and
as
per
Oklahoma’s
Habitual
Criminal
Sterilization
Act,
he
was
to
be
sterilized
without
receiving
the
opportunity
to
question
the
heritability
of
his
criminality.
He
appealed
the
decision
claiming
it
to
be
a
cruel
and
unusual
punishment
for
his
crimes,
as
well
as
a
breach
of
the
Fourteenth
Amendment’s
due
process
and
equal
protection
clauses.
The
defense,
representing
the
state
of
Oklahoma,
argued
that
the
legislation
was
“eugenic”
in
purpose,
and
thus
ought
to
follow
the
precedent
of
Buck
v.
Bell.
In
this
occasion,
the
court
was
much
more
receptive
to
the
unsettling,
troublesome
nature
of
sterilization.
Justice
William
O.
Douglas,
writing
the
majority
opinion
for
the
court
began
by
stating,
“This
case
touches
a
sensitive
and
important
area
of
human
rights.
Oklahoma
deprives
certain
individuals
of
a
right
which
is
basic
to
the
perpetuation
of
a
race
—
the
right
to
have
offspring.”42
By
asserting
a
substantive
right
to
procreate,
Douglas
painted
this
issue
as
ǡ ϐ immediately
differentiated
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma
from
its
closest
predecessor,
Buck
vs.
Bell,
the
case
in
which
Holmes
rejected
the
idea
of
fundamental
rights
through
substantive
due
process.
The
sterilization
statute
was
overturned
unanimously,
although
three
different
opinions
were
given.
In
the
majority
opinion,
Douglas
favored
an
equal
Ǥ ϐ was
arbitrary
since
“white-‐collar”
crimes
similar
to
larceny,
like
embezzlement,
did
not
count
towards
sterilization
under
the
Oklahoma
statute.
Justice
Douglas
concluded
that
there
was
no
rational
basis
for
such
a
distinction,
and
thus
held
the
Oklahoma
act
unconstitutional.
Stone,
however,
believed
that
substantive
due
process
would
be
a
better
argument
in
this
case
than
equal
protection.
He
believed
that
the
ϐ ϐ ǡ but
that
the
infringement
of
the
“personal
liberty
of
the
individual”
was
problematic,
especially
since
the
hereditary
basis
for
criminality
was
not
proven.
Lastly,
Justice
Jackson
wrote
a
concurring
opinion
in
which
he
concluded
that
the
combination
of
the
equal
protection
and
due
process
arguments
resulted
in
his
ϐ 43.
Despite
the
apparent
differences
between
Buck
v.
Bell
and
Skinner
v.
Oklahoma,
the
majority
and
both
concurring
opinions
were
very
careful
to
distinguish
the
Skinner
case
from
Buck
v.
Bell,
so
as
not
to
disrupt
its
place
as
precedent.
They
emphasized
both
that
it
dealt
with
punitive
sterilization
and
that
the
Oklahoma
law
had
less
stringent
due
process
requirements
than
the
Virginia
statute
under
question
in
Buck
v.
Bell.
44
Conclusion Although
Skinner ϐ Buck
v.
Bell,
nor
ban
sterilization
as
a
practice,
it
did
come
to
signal
the
end
of
the
eugenics
movement.
The
civil
libertarian
approach
to
fundamental
rights
greatly
increased
the
burden
of
proof
and
accountability
of
the
government
in
enacting
compulsory
sterilization
laws.
By
arguing
an
equal
protection
argument
reminiscent
of
Smith
v.
Board
of
Examiners,
an
argument
previously
used
for
non-‐punitive
sterilization,
the
Supreme
Court
increased
the
burden
of
proof
for
states
to
justify
any
ϐ Ǧ Ǥ45
26 By
 
 recognizing
 
 the
 
 personal
 
 right
 
 to
 
 procreate,
 
 the
 
 Court
 
  acknowledged
 
 the
 
 autonomy
 
 of
 
 the
 
 individual
 
 in
 
 making
 
  personal
 
  decisions,
 
  and
 
  thus
 
  applied
 
  stricter
 
  scrutiny
 
  to
 
  such
 
  cases.
 
  Establishing
 
  greater
 
  state
 
  limitations
 
  while
 
  expanding
 
  individual
 
  rights,
 
  the
 
  civil
 
  libertarian
 
  approach
 
  used
 
  by
 
  the
 
  Supreme
 
  Court
 
  in
 
  Skinner
 
  v.
 
  Oklahoma
 
 effectively
 
 weakened
 
 the
 
 legal
 
 foundation
 
 for
 
  eugenic
 
 sterilization
 
 statutes.
 
 
 
 
 
  Further,
 
  by
 
  the
 
  time
 
  Skinner
 
  came
 
  to
 
  the
 
  —’”‡Â?‡ ‘—”–ǥ –Š‡ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… …Žƒ‹Â?• –‘ ‡—‰‡Â?‹…• Šƒ† been
 
  undermined
 
  by
 
  greater
 
  insight
 
  into
 
  heritability
 
  and
 
  human
 
  genetics.
 
  In
 
  1943,
 
  Walter
 
  Wheeler
 
  Cooke
 
  drew
 
  on
 
  more
 
  intricate
 
  science
 
  to
 
  disprove
 
  eugenic
 
  claims,
 
  and
 
  proposed
 
  euthenics,
 
  or
 
  “the
 
  betterment
 
  of
 
  Ž‹˜‹Â?‰ …‘Â?†‹–‹‘Â?• –‘ •‡…—”‡ Â?‘”‡ ‡ˆĎ?‹…‹‡Â?– Š—Â?ƒÂ? „‡‹Â?‰•ǥdz as
 
  a
 
  substitute
 
  to
 
  sterilization.46
 
  Consequently,
 
  as
 
  ƒŽ–‡”Â?ÂƒÂ–Â‹Â˜Â‡ÇĄ Â?‘”‡ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?Â‹Â…ÂƒÂŽÂŽÂ›ÇŚÂŽÂ‡Â‰Â‹Â–Â‹Â?ƒ–‡ ƒÂ?† Â•Â‘Â…Â‹ÂƒÂŽÂŽÂ›ÇŚ acceptable
 
  methods
 
  of
 
  improving
 
  society
 
  emerged,
 
  the
 
  state
 
 lost
 
 a
 
 rational
 
 basis,
 
 let
 
 alone
 
 a
 
 compelling
 
 reason
 
  to
 
  impose
 
  compulsory
 
  sterilizations.
 
  The
 
  weakening
 
  of
 
  the
 
  legal
 
  status
 
  of
 
  eugenic
 
  statutes
 
  compounded
 
  by
 
  the
 
  ™‡ƒÂ?‡Â?‹Â?‰ ‘ˆ –Š‡ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… ˆ‘—Â?†ƒ–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ ‡—‰‡Â?‹…• –Š—• resulted
 
 in
 
 the
 
 fall
 
 of
 
 the
 
 eugenics
 
 movement.
 
 
 
 
 
 Endnotes 1
 
 
 
 Willrich,
 
 Michael,
 
 “The
 
 Two
 
 Percent
 
 Solution:
 
 Eugenic
 
  Jurisprudence
 
 and
 
 the
 
 Socialization
 
 of
 
 American
 
 Law,
 
 1900-Ââ€?1930,â€?
 
  Law
 
 &
 
 Hist.
 
 Rev.
 
 16
 
 (1998):
 
 1990-Ââ€?1930. 2
 
 
 
 Allen,
 
 Garland
 
 E,
 
 “Flaws
 
 in
 
 Eugenics
 
 Research,�
 
 The
 
 Eugenics
 
  Archive;
 
 available
 
 from
 
 http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/ eugenics/essay5text.html,
 
 accessed
 
 January
 
 5,
 
 2009. 3
 
 
 
 Willrich,
 
 “The
 
 Two
 
 Percent
 
 Solution,�
 
 64. 4
 
 
 
 Laughlin,
 
 Harry,
 
 Eugenical
 
 Sterilization
 
 in
 
 the
 
 United
 
 States,
 
  (Chicago,
 
 IL:
 
 Psychopathic
 
 Laboratory
 
 of
 
 the
 
 Municipal
 
 Court
 
 of
 
  Chicago,
 
 1922). 5
 
 
 
 Ibid.,
 
 24-Ââ€?34. 6
 
 
 
 State
 
 of
 
 Washington
 
 v.
 
 Feilen
 
 70
 
 Wash.
 
 65;
 
 126
 
 P.
 
 75;
 
 1912
 
  ƒ•ŠǤ ͳͲͲͳǤ 7
 
 
 
 Smith
 
 v.
 
 Board
 
 of
 
 Examiners
 
 85
 
 N.J.L.
 
 46;
 
 88
 
 A.
 
 963;
 
 1913
 
 N.J.
 
  —’Ǥ –Ǥ ͳ͜Ǥ Íş ƒ˜‹• ˜Ǥ ‡””› ʹͳ͸ Ǥ ͜ͳ;Ǣ ͳ͝ͳ͜ Ǥ Ǥ ‹•–Ǥ ͳ͸ͲʹǤ 9
 
 
 
  ‹…Â?Ž‡ ˜Ǥ ‡Â?”‹…Š• ʹ͸ʹ Ǥ ͸ͺ͚Ǣ ͳ͝ͳͺ Ǥ Ǥ ‹•–Ǥ ͸͸͸Ǥ 10
 
 
 
 Washington
 
 v.
 
 Feilen,
 
 Davis
 
 v.
 
 Berry. 11
 
 
 
 Smith
 
 v.
 
 Board
 
 of
 
 Examiners. 12
 
 
 
 Lochner
 
 v.
 
 New
 
 York
 
 198
 
 U.S.
 
 45;
 
 25
 
 S.
 
 Ct.
 
 539;
 
 49
 
 L.
 
 Ed.
 
 937;
 
  ͳ͝Ͳ͡ Ǥ Ǥ ͳͳ͡;Ǥ 13
 
 
 
 Laughlin,
 
 Eugenical
 
 Sterilization
 
 in
 
 the
 
 United
 
 States,
 
 12. 14
 
 
 
 Ibid.,
 
 24-Ââ€?35. 15
 
 
 
 Lochner
 
 v.
 
 New
 
 York. 16
 
 
 
 Boston,
 
 Charles
 
 A.,
 
 “Protest
 
 Against
 
 Laws
 
 Authorizing
 
 the
 
  Sterilization
 
 of
 
 Criminals
 
 and
 
 Imbeciles,�
 
 Journal
 
 of
 
 American
 
  Institute
 
 of
 
 Criminal
 
 Law
 
 and
 
 Criminology
 
 358
 
 (May
 
 1913
 
 to
 
 March
 
  1914):
 
 4. ͳ͚ ‡Â?›‘Â?ÇĄ Ǥ ‹ŽŽ‡”ǥ –‡”‹Ž‹œƒ–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ Â?Ď?‹–ǥ ƒǤ Ǥ ‡˜ Íł ȋͳ͝ͳ;nj 1914):
 
 458. 18
 
 
 
 Boston,
 
 Protest
 
 Against
 
 Laws
 
 Authorizing
 
 the
 
 Sterilization,
 
 4.;
 
  ‡Â?›‘Â?ÇĄ –‡”‹Ž‹œƒ–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ Â?Ď?‹–ǥ ͜͡ͺǤ 19
 
 
 
 Laughlin,
 
 Eugenical
 
 Sterilization
 
 in
 
 the
 
 United
 
 States. 20
 
 
 
 Eggen,
 
 J.
 
 B,
 
 The
 
 Fallacy
 
 of
 
 Eugenics,
 
 5
 
 Soc.
 
 F.
 
 104
 
 (1926-Ââ€?1927).
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
21
 
 
 
 Lombardo,
 
 Paul.
 
 “Eugenic
 
 Sterilization
 
 Laws,�
 
 The
 
 Eugenics
 
  Archive.
 
 Dolan
 
 DNA
 
 Learning
 
 Center,
 
 Cold
 
 Spring
 
 Harbor,
 
 NY.
 
  Available
 
 from
 
 http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/ essay8text.html;
 
 Accessed
 
 Jan
 
 15,
 
 2009. 22
 
 
 
 Buck
 
 v.
 
 Bell
 
 274
 
 U.S.
 
 200;
 
 47
 
 S.
 
 Ct.
 
 584;
 
 71
 
 L.
 
 Ed.
 
 1000;
 
 1927
 
  Ǥ Ǥ ʹͲǤ 23
 
 
 
 Buck
 
 v.
 
 Bell. 24
 
 
 
 Note:
 
 Justice
 
 Butler
 
 was
 
 a
 
 conservative
 
 Catholic
 
 Judge.
 
 The
 
  practice
 
 of
 
 not
 
 writing
 
 a
 
 dissent
 
 was
 
 fairly
 
 common
 
 during
 
 the
 
  time.
 
 “Pierce
 
 Butler
 
 (justice),�
 
 Wikipedia,
 
 The
 
 Free
 
 Encyclopedia,
 
  (accessed
 
 January
 
 11,
 
 2009). 25
 
 
 
 Compulsory
 
 vaccination
 
 was
 
 determined
 
 a
 
 legitimate
 
 state,
 
  public
 
 health
 
 interest
 
 in
 
 Jacobson
 
 v.
 
 Massachusetts.
 
 See
 
 Buck
 
 v.
 
 Bell. 26
 
 
 
 Buck
 
 v.
 
 Bell. 27
 
 
 
 Landman,
 
 J.H.,
 
 History
 
 of
 
 Human
 
 Sterilization
 
 in
 
 the
 
 United
 
  States-Ââ€?Theory,
 
 Statute,
 
 Adjudication.
 
 23
 
 Ill.
 
 L.
 
 Rev.
 
 463
 
 (1928-Ââ€?1929). 28
 
 
 
 Aronoff,
 
 Jacob
 
 Broches,
 
 The
 
 Constitutionality
 
 of
 
 Asexualization
 
  Legislation
 
 in
 
 the
 
 United
 
 States,
 
 1
 
 St.
 
 John’s
 
 L.
 
 Rev.
 
 146
 
 (1926-Ââ€?1927),
 
  152. Í´Íť ‡‡ǣ –ƒ–‡ ˜Ǥ …Šƒˆˆ‡” ͳʹ͸ ƒÂ?Ǥ ͸Ͳ͚Ǣ ʹ͚Ͳ Ǥ ͸Ͳ͜Ǣ ͳ͝ʹͺ ƒÂ?Ǥ 151.
Â? ”‡ Žƒ›–‘Â? ͳʹͲ ‡„Ǥ ͸ͺͲǢ ʹ;͜ Ǥ Ǥ ͸;ͲǢ ͳ͝;ͳ ‡„Ǥ ;;Ǥ –ƒ–‡ ˜Ǥ ”‘—–Â?ƒÂ? ͡Ͳ †ƒŠ‘ ͸͚;Ǣ ʹ͝͝ Ǥ ͸͸ͺǢ ͳ͝;ͳ †ƒǤ ʹǤ ;Ͳ ƒ˜‹• ˜Ǥ ƒŽ–‘Â? ͚͜ –ƒŠ ͺͲǢ ʹ͚͸ Ǥ ͝ʹͳǢ ͳ͝ʹ͝ –ƒŠ ͜Ǥ 31
 
 
 
 Lombardo,
 
 Eugenic
 
 Sterilization
 
 Laws,
 
 2. 32
 
 
 
 Allen,
 
 “Flaws
 
 in
 
 Eugenics
 
 Research.� 33
 
 
 
 Myerson,
 
 Abraham,
 
 Certain
 
 Medical
 
 and
 
 Legal
 
 Phases
 
 of
 
  Eugenic
 
 Sterilization,
 
 52
 
 Yale
 
 L.J.
 
 631
 
 (1942-Ââ€?1943). 34
 
 
 
 Allen,
 
 “Flaws
 
 in
 
 Eugenics
 
 Research,�
 
 4. 35
 
 
 
 Lowenstein,
 
 Karl,
 
 Law
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Third
 
 Reich,
 
 45
 
 Yale
 
 L.
 
 J.
 
 795
 
  (1935-Ââ€?1936). 36
 
 
 
 Willrich,
 
 The
 
 Two
 
 Percent
 
 Solution,
 
 109. 37
 
 
 
 Sundquist,
 
 James
 
 L.,
 
 Dynamics
 
 of
 
 the
 
 Party
 
 System:
 
  Alignment
 
 and
 
 Realignment
 
 of
 
 Political
 
 Parties
 
 in
 
 the
 
 United
 
 States,
 
  (Washington
 
 D.C.:
 
 The
 
 Brookings
 
 Institution,
 
 1983). 38
 
 
 
 “Skinner
 
 v.
 
 Oklahoma.�
 
 Wikipedia,
 
 The
 
 Free
 
 Encyclopedia.
 
 24
 
  Nov
 
 2008,
 
 18:40
 
 UTC.
 
 Accessed
 
 11
 
 Jan
 
 2009. 39
 
 
 
 Whittington,
 
 Keith
 
 E.,
 
 “The
 
 Political
 
 Foundations
 
 of
 
 Judicial
 
  Supremacy:
 
 The
 
 President,
 
 the Supreme
 
 Court,
 
 and
 
 Constitutional
 
 Leadership
 
 in
 
 U.S.
 
 History,�
 
  (Princeton,
 
 NJ:
 
 Princeton
 
 University
 
 Press,
 
 2007). 40
 
 
 
 United
 
 States
 
 v.
 
 Carolene
 
 Products
 
 Company
 
 7
 
 F.
 
 Supp.
 
 500;
 
  ͳ͝;͜ Ǥ Ǥ ‹•–Ǥ ͳ͝;͸Ǥ 41
 
 
 
 Skinner
 
 v.
 
 Oklahoma
 
 316
 
 U.S.
 
 535,
 
 *62
 
 S.
 
 Ct.
 
 1110,
 
 **86
 
 L.
 
 Ed.
 
  1655.
 
 ***1942
 
 U.S.
 
 Lexis
 
 493. 42
 
 
 
 Supra
 
 Skinner
 
 v.
 
 Oklahoma. 43
 
 
 
 Supra
 
 Skinner
 
 v.
 
 Oklahoma. 44
 
 
 
 Supra
 
 Skinner
 
 v,
 
 Oklahoma. 45
 
 
 
 Smith
 
 v.
 
 Board
 
 of
 
 Examiners. 46
 
 
 
 Cook,
 
 Walter
 
 Wheeler,
 
 Eugenics
 
 or
 
 Euthenics,
 
 37
 
 Ill.
 
 L.
 
 Rev.
 
 287
 
  (1942-Ââ€?1943).
27
The
Controversy
Surrounding
Galileo’s
Lunar
Observations:
Arguments
about
What
Could
be
Seen, What
Moons
Were
Seen,
and
Why
Each
Party
Saw
What
They
Saw By Steve Benay, Cornell ‘11
Introduction In
Galileo’s
account
of
what
objective
science
is
supposed
to
be,
plausibility
and
presuppositions
have
no
place.
Science
to
him,
just
as
it
was
to
Aristotle,
stemmed
from
induction
from
what
can
be
seen
to
“true,”
“necessary,”
and
“eternal”
conclusions.
The
story
usually
told
about
Galileo’s
lunar
observations
is
one
of
the
triumph
of
the
rationality
of
science
and
its
facts
over
the
irrationality
and
stubbornness
of
bookish
philosophers
and
theologians—
that
Galileo’s
telescope
allowed
him
to
see
unambiguously
that
the
moon
had
a
rough
surface.
I
will
demonstrate
in
this
paper
that
it
was
not
unambiguous
that
the
telescope
allowed
Galileo
to
“see”
the
heavens
at
all
and,
even
when
taking
for
granted
that
the
telescope
allowed
him
to
“see,”
it
was
not
unambiguous
that
what
he
was
seeing
was
a
lunar
surface
that
was
rough.
I
examine
ϐ ǡ when
faced
with
controversy,
indirectly
make
strategic
use
of
philosophical
arguments
to
dub
phenomena
Dz dz Dz dz ϐ “meaningful”
or
“meaningless.”
I
will
show
that
in
ϐ ǡ experiment
is
deployed
in
discriminating
between
empirically
inequivalent
theories,
and
I
will
inquire
into
what
that
“something”
is.
Finally,
I
will
draw
a
conclusion
about
the
naïve
conception
of
empiricism
and
objective
science
outlined
above
and
its
tenability
in
practice.
A
key
argument
from
the
philosophy
of
science
can
be
used
to
show
that
knowledge
of
unobservable
entities
is
unattainable.
When
two
theories
concerning
the
same
phenomenon
make
the
same
predictions
about
what
one
would
observe
when
performing
various
experiments,
yet
posit
a
different
unobservable
basis
or
cause
for
the
phenomenon
in
question,
those
theories
are
said
to
be
empirically
equivalent.
According
to
the
evidential
indistinguishability
thesis
(EIT),
favoring
one
theory
over
another
that
is
empirically
equivalent
to
it
is
impossible
because
of
the
crucial
experiment
thesis,
or
CET,
which
claims
that
one
theory
can
be
favored
over
another
only
by
means
of
a
crucial
experiment,
in
which
some
observation
or
experiment
is
performed
ϐ of
the
two
competing
theories.
Only
empirically
inequivalent
theories
can
be
differentiated.
Because
no
evidence
distinguishes
between
theories
that
make
the
same
observational
predictions,
the
only
way
to
progress
is
to
distinguish
between
theories
that
make
different
observational
predictions.
No
matter
how
different
two
theories
are
concerning
unobservable
things,
we
can
have
no
knowledge
of
which
theory
is
to
be
favored—and
can
thus
have
no
knowledge
of
unobservable
things.
The
EIT
is
a
reformulation
of
knowledge
empiricism,
the
concept
that
knowledge
is
ϐ Ǥ1
Did
Galileo
Really
See
Anything?
How
Arguments
About
the
Observable
Were
Employed At
the
start
of
the
17th
century,
the
workings
of
the
telescope
were
neither
understood
fully
nor
accepted
as
uncontroversial.
The
early
dispute
concerning
Galileo’s
observations
was
at
what
the
sociologist
of
science
Trevor
Pinch
would
call
a
low
level
of
externality.2
Historian
Mario
Biagioli
explains
how
the
dispute
“focused
on
the
very
existence
of
the
things
he
claimed
to
observe.”3 ϐ ǡ the
reliability
of
the
telescope.
Galileo
attempted
to
make
the
argument
that
the
telescope
made
things
that
“were
absolutely
invisible,”
such
as
the
wavering
of
the
dividing
line
between
the
light
and
dark
side
of
the
moon,
the
changing
shape
of
small
spots
by
the
hour,
visible.4
These
new
details
served
as
evidence
that
the
moon
had
a
rough
surface.
This
was
potentially
problematic,
however,
since
knowledge
empiricism
states
that
only
knowledge
of
observable
things
is
possible.
The
question
arose:
what
constituted
“observable?”
If
the
details
Galileo
cited
as
data
were
“invisible”
to
the
naked
eye,
what
was
to
stop
someone
from
saying
they
are
unobservable,
and
therefore
meaningless,
whether
looked
at
through
a
tube
or
not?
ϐ the
possible
criticism
above
by
asserting
the
auxiliary
28
ǣȀȀ Ǥϐ Ǥ Ȁ Ȁ Ȁ͵Ͳͷ͵ͷͺͳȀ
hypothesis
that
his
telescope
reliably
enhanced
the
deployed,
and
this
weakness
was
highlighted
as
senses.
An
argument
of
this
form
can
be
set
out
as
Galileo’s
adversaries
pointed
out
various
problems
follows.
Consider
a
theory
about
the
workings
of
a
with
the
telescope.
Their
counterargument
was
an
telescope—call
this
theory
“the
lens
maker’s
theory.”
alternate
theory
to
the
lens
maker’s
theory
concerning
The
lens
maker’s
theory
posits
that
the
image
seen
the
workings
of
the
telescope,
a
“ghost
theory.”
The
ϐ ghost
theory
posits
that
for
all
objects
that
are
currently
than
the
image
seen
with
the
naked
eye.
Because
this
observable
to
the
naked
eye,
the
telescope
created
an
ϐ ϐ ǡ on
observable
objects
(one
can
clearly
see
the
object
in
the
original
lens
maker’s
theory.
For
objects
that
and
the
image
with
the
naked
eye,5
and
the
appearance
are
not
observable
to
the
naked
eye,
however,
like
ϐ objects
that
are
too
far
away,
the
image
that
is
formed
Ȍǡ ϐ “is
caused
by
an
unobservable
ghost.”10
These
two
telescope
at
objects
not
directly
visible
with
the
naked
theories,
the
lens-‐maker’s
theory
and
the
ghost
theory,
eye.
Maintaining
such
a
are
empirically
equivalent
theory
insulates
inferences
for
the
set
of
objects
that
are
made
from
data
acquired
of
observable
with
the
naked
things
too
far
away
to
see
from
eye.
For
those
objects
that
criticisms
that
the
phenomena
are
not
observable
to
the
in
question
are
“unobservable”
naked
eye,
the
theories
are
and,
according
to
our
empirically
inequivalent— formulation
of
knowledge
ϐ empiricism,
meaningless,
by
maker’s
theory
for
objects
showing
in
a
testable
way
that
are
too
far
away
to
see,
that
the
methodology
used
in
one
cannot
know
if
the
image
observation
extends
the
scope
formed
is
caused
regularly
by
of
the
set
of
objects
within
the
ϐ ȋ grasp
of
our
sight. the
lens
maker’s
theory)
or
Galileo
had
little
is
formed
by
an
unobservable
knowledge
of
the
workings
ghost
(as
in
the
alternative).
of
the
telescope;
he
had
To
argue
for
one
theory
over
assembled
it
by
trial
and
One
of
Galileo’s
drawings
of
the
lunar
surface. the
other
is
to
discriminate
error.
He
asserted,
however,
between
empirically
that
because
of
its
“great
inequivalent
theories
without
advantages…on
land
and
sea,”6
it
could
be
“applied… conducting
a
crucial
experiment—a
feat
that
is
to
explorations
of
the
heavens.”7
He
noted
how
one
impossible
according
to
the
CET.11
ϐ ǯ
Renowned
astronomer
Giovanni
Magini
stated
theory
set
out
above:
“[To
be]
more
certain
about
the
the
telescope
was
“a
deception,”
because
it
“showed
three
ϐ ǡ suns
in
an
eclipse.”12
Galileo
also
noted
inconsistency
circles…one
of
which
is
four
hundred
times
larger
between
observations
made
by
the
naked
eye
and
those
than
the
other…he
will
then
observe
from
afar
both… made
with
his
telescope:
“in
the
stars,
the
increase
the
smaller
one
with
the
eye
applied
to
the
glass
and
appears
much
smaller
so
that
you
may
believe
that
a
the
larger
one
with
the
other,
naked
eye…both
appear
glass
capable
of
multiplying
other
objects,
for
example,
of
the
same
size.”8
Having
done
this,
Galileo
argued,
by
a
ratio
of
100
hardly
multiplies
stars
by
a
ratio
of
4
“anyone
will
then
understand
with
certainty
of
the
or
5.”13
Magini
wrote
of
his
work
with
the
instrument:
senses
that
the
moon
is
by
no
means
endowed
with
“on
Earth
it
works
miracles;
in
the
heavens
it
deceives,
a
smooth
surface.”9
Because
the
telescope
extended
ϐ Ǥdz14
Christoph
Clavius,
the
the
senses,
the
splotches
Galileo
saw
through
it
were
Jesuit
mathematician
and
one
of
Galileo’s
adversaries,
observable
splotches;
by
the
argument
set
out
in
the
asserted
that
the
moons
of
Jupiter
could
have
only
been
introduction,
they
were
meaningful
splotches.
Using
seen
if
Galileo
had
placed
them
inside
the
telescope.15
this
line
of
reasoning,
Galileo
was
able
to
accuse
his
In
“The
Elephant
on
the
Moon,”
Samuel
Butler
satirically
opponents
of
turning
a
blind
eye
to
the
brute
facts
comments
on
the
“learned”
as
they
watch
through
of
his
data,
selectively
ignoring
what
contradicted
a
telescope
a
battle
with
armies
and
an
elephant:
“a
philosophical
and
theological
doctrines. stranger
sight
appears
than
ever
was
seen
in
all
the
There
was
a
weakness
in
the
argument
Galileo
mortal
spheres…than
ever
a
mortal
tube
beheld…an
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
29
ǣȀȀ Ǥϐ Ǥ Ȁ Ȁ Ȁ 3197074818/in/set-‐72157607165535706/
elephant
from
one
of
those
two
mighty
armies
is
broke
with
the
human
eye
“When
stars
are
viewed
by
means
loose.”16
The
learned
comment,
“this
one
discovery’s
of
unaided
natural
vision,”
he
wrote,
“they
present
enough
to
take
all
former
scandals
off.”17
Later,
one
of
themselves
to
us
not
as
of
their
simple
(and,
so
to
the
footboys
in
the
story
“found
a
mouse
was
gotten
in
speak,
their
physical)
size,
but
as
irradiated…and
as
the
hollow
of
the
tube,
and,
shut
between
the
two
glass
fringed
with
sparkling
rays.”22
He
then
explained
windows
in
restraint,
was
swelled
into
an
elephant.”18
how
the
telescope
“removes
from
the
stars
their
The
criticisms
of
Galileo’s
telescope
noted
above
are
adventitious
and
accidental
rays,”
thus
making
up
for
important
because
they
indirectly
illuminate
the
the
imperfections
of
the
eye.23 possibility
of
an
alternate
ghost
theory
accounting
for
Following
from
the
CET,
the
lens
maker’s
the
image
Galileo
observed.
Just
as
in
the
ghost
theory,
theory
and
the
ghost
theory
are
indistinguishable.
It
is
the
telescope
on
Earth,
where
things
were
close
enough
difficult
to
resolve
the
how
a
given
image
of
something
to
be
seen
and
where
the
lens
maker’s
theory
can
be
far
away
seen
through
the
telescope
appears
larger,
confirmed,
works
perfectly.
But
in
the
heavens,
where
by
regular
magnification,
by
a
defect
in
the
telescope,
things
were
already
too
far
or
because
of
a
ghost.
away
to
observe,
it
deceives.
For
Galileo’s
adversaries,
These
critics
pointed
out
that
inconsistencies
between
a
strange
image
seen
through
naked
eye
observation
a
telescope
but
never
seen
by
and
telescopic
observation
the
naked
eye—anomalous
illuminated
the
possibility
magnification
of
stars,
strange
of
a
ghost
theory
that
appearances
of
the
sun,
a
crater
explained
what
was
or
an
elephant
on
the
moon— seen.
For
Galileo,
it
was
might
indeed
be
caused
in
the
a
one-‐sided
dispute.
The
fashion
that
the
lens
maker’s
telescope
magnified
theory
posits,
but
could
easily
most
things,
including
be
caused
by
something
else,
the
details
of
the
moon
whether
unobservable
ghost
and
the
stars,
in
a
regular
or
even
a
mouse.
fashion
according
to
the
Galileo,
as
historian
lens
maker’s
theory.
He
Harriot’s
drawing
of
the
moon
from
July,
1609. Neil
Thomason
notes,
had
to
dubbed
other
phenomena
agree
implicitly
that
some
that
contradicted
the
lens
of
the
observations
made
by
the
telescope
were
not
maker’s
theory
exceptions:
the
appearances
of
double
reliable,
and
did
not
entirely
follow
his
lens
maker’s
stars,
three
suns,
color
around
various
objects,
or
theory:
“after
all
he
did
not
proclaim
that
the
sun
the
apparent
shrinking
of
stars
when
seen
through
sometimes
split
into
thirds.”19
When
viewed
through
the
telescope.
Galileo
also
reinforced
his
findings
by
the
telescope,
stars
and
planets
often
appeared
to
have
asserting
auxiliary
hypotheses
after
the
fact
about
why
rings
of
color
around
them—yet
Galileo
did
not
posit
stars
contradict
the
lens
maker’s
theory,
asserting
that
that
this
was
their
actual
appearance.
In
light
of
the
the
eye,
not
the
telescope,
was
the
problem.
problems
of
the
telescope,
the
lens
maker’s
theory
This
dispute
exemplifies
how
scientists
can
that
I
set
out
above
as
justification
for
the
telescope’s
strategically
deploy
theories
like
the
lens
maker’s
extending
the
senses
must
be
expanded
upon.
Galileo
to
classify
their
data
as
“observable,”
meaningful,
posited
that
the
telescope
generally
magnified
things
and
immune
to
attack.
Scientists
highlight
theories
regularly
but
some
objects,
like
the
sun
during
an
like
the
ghost
theory
to
dub
data
unobservable
and
eclipse
or
the
stars
when
they
appear
with
colored
meaningless,
merely
the
product
of
error,
as
with
a
fringes,
are
exceptions
to
the
rule.
Historian
Noretta
poorly
prepared
lens.
Whether
an
image
is
revealed
Koertge
writes
that
Galileo
dubbed
certain
phenomena
as
empirical
fact
through
the
telescope
or
is
mere
seen
through
the
telescope
“accident.”20
Galileo
also
accident
is
determined
by
which
objects
a
scientist
recommended
that
one
“prepare
a
most
accurate
glass”
asserts
are
subject
and
not
subject
to
the
lens
maker’s
to
reduce
such
“errors.”
21 theory.
The
application
of
the
lens
maker’s
theory
is
Galileo
used
post-‐hoc
auxiliary
hypotheses
partially
determined
by
which
phenomena
a
scientist
to
explain
such
inconsistencies.
He
stated
that
the
needs
to
dub
meaningful,
in
order
to
justify
his
stance
problem
of
the
stars
decreasing
in
size
instead
of
in
a
controversy,
and
which
phenomena
are,
in
light
of
being
magnified
when
viewed
through
the
lens
was
plausibility,
significant.
Scientists
accuse
each
other
not
a
problem
with
the
telescope
but
rather
a
problem
of
distinguishing
between
theories
that,
following
30 from
the
CET,
cannot
be
differentiated,
and
of
ignoring
empirical
facts
supplied
by
plain
sight
and
instead
favoring
the
theories
of
doctrine,
which,
also
following
ǡ ϐ Ǥ Both
sides
accuse
each
other
of
“going
beyond
the
data”
in
arriving
at
their
conclusions.
Not
long
after
the
publication
of
Galileo’s
Sidereus
Nuncius,
the
reliability
of
the
telescope
in
extending
the
senses
(with
exceptions
for
a
few
objects)
was
generally
accepted.24
The
dispute
over
the
roughness
of
surface
of
the
moon,
however,
was
far
from
over.
Seeing
Different
Moons:
What
Scientists
Saw
in
Galileo’s
Data
and
Why
they
Saw
What
they
Did Galileo
concluded
that
the
surface
of
the
moon
was
rough
by
observing
“the
boundary
dividing
the
bright
from
the
dark
part
does
not
form
a
uniformly
oval
line,
as
would
happen
with
a
perfectly
spherical
solid,
but
is
marked
by
an
uneven,
rough,
and
very
sinuous
line,”
and
that
“all
these
small
spots…have
a
dark
part
on
the
side
toward
the
Sun,
while
on
the
side
opposite
the
Sun
they
are
crowned
with
brighter
borders,”
and
changed
shape
over
time.25
The
data
that
Galileo
collected
through
his
ϐ Ǥ ϐ ǡ ϐ theories
that
account
for
that
data
fully
but
posit
different
predictions
for
unobservables
or
for
the
currently
Ǥ ϐ ǡ Dz dz ǡ not
all
of
these
empirically
inequivalent
theories
are
considered
worth
testing
with
a
crucial
experiment;
scientists
routinely
distinguish
between
such
theories
by
deploying
extra-‐experimental
criteria.
Scientists
must
decide
which
theories
are
projectible—that
is,
plausible
and
therefore
relevant
in
light
of
background
theories.26
As
such,
Galileo’s
conclusion
was
not
the
only
one
possible.
When
someone
views
the
moon
through
the
telescope,
he
cannot
see
elevation—he
can
merely
see
splotches
of
color
on
a
lunar
disk.
Many
theories
can
account
for
the
unobserved
cause
underlying
the
observed
splotches.
Months
before
the
publication
of
Galileo’s
work,
Thomas
Harriot
pointed
his
telescope
to
the
moon
and
noticed
its
“strange
spottedness.”27
The
dividing
line
that
Galileo
presented
as
evidence
for
the
roughness
of
the
surface
is
jagged
in
Harriot’s
maps
of
the
moon.28
Furthermore,
Harriot’s
maps
were
drawn
as
if
the
moon’s
surface
were
smooth
and
merely
colored
irregularly.
Commenting
on
Galileo’s
publication,
Harriot
wrote
he
“had
no
conceit
that
any
part
thereof
might
be
shadows.”29
In
the
same
letter
that
the
Jesuit
ϐ
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
telescope,
it
was
written:
“the
great
inequity
of
the
moon
cannot
be
denied.
But
it
appears
to
Father
Clavius
more
probable
that
the
surface
is
not
uneven.”30
To
understand
where
these
counterintuitive
conclusions
concerning
the
moon’s
surface
came
from,
it
is
useful
to
review
the
history
of
the
theories
of
the
moon
and
its
light.
In
the
Middle
Ages,
the
theory
of
Averroes
dominated
scholastic
study.
In
his
commentary
on
Aristotle’s
De
Caelo,
Averroes
stated
of
the
moon:
“the
spot
is
a
portion
of
the
surface
of
the
moon
that
does
not
receive
the
light
of
the
sun
in
the
same
way
that
other
portions
do.”31
He
was
careful
to
note
that
the
moon
ϐ ǡ Dz ǥ by
becoming
a
luminous
body
itself.”32
The
spots
on
the
moon
were
accounted
for
not
by
roughness
of
the
moon’s
surface,
but
for
its
differing
luminescent
properties.
Ariew
traces
the
history
of
Averroesian
theory
and
shows
that
it
survived
the
Middle
Ages
through
translations
of
the
natural
philosopher
and
theologian
Thomas
Aquinas.33
The
Averroesian
theory
of
the
moon
blended
well
with
Christianity,
as
scholastic
commentator
Rupert
of
Deutz
observed,
“for
indeed,
just
as
the
moon
shines
forth
and
gives
forth
a
light
that
is
not
hers,
but
is
rather
collected
from
the
sun,
so
you,
most
blessed
Virgin,
shine
by
a
light
that
does
not
come
from
you
yourself…but
from
divine
grace.”34
Christian-‐ Aristotelian
theory
likened
the
moon
to
the
immaculate
Virgin
Mary
and
stipulated
that
the
heavens
were
an
immutable
realm.
In
1609,
just
before
Galileo
published
Siderius
Nuncius,
Eustachio
summarized
the
Averrosian
theory
of
the
moon.35
Ariew
notes
the
similarity
of
the
summary
to
other
Jesuit
works
of
the
Collegio
Romano.36
This
Jesuit-‐Aristotelian
natural
philosophy
ϐ ǯ Ǥ
The
Christian-‐Aristotelian
paradigm
provided
the
background
theories
and
helped
govern
the
auxiliary
hypotheses
of
Galileo’s
adversaries.
Clavius,
the
Jesuit
Aristotelian,
proposed
an
alternate
to
Galileo’s
theory
explaining
the
apparent
spots
on
the
moon
by
concluding
that
the
surface
was
smooth:
“the
lunar
body
is
not
of
uniform
density
and
has
denser
and
rarer
parts,
as
the
ordinary
spots
seen
with
natural
sight.”37
Clavius’
ϐ ǣ moon,
with
disproportionate
densities,
can
be
posited
to
“illuminate
itself”
differently,
just
as
Averroes
had
said.
Clavius
certainly
had
the
motivation
to
uphold
the
smoothness
of
the
moon
from
his
religious
conception
of
the
immutability
of
the
heavens.
Galileo’s
lunar
observations
posed
little
threat
to
his
ecclesiastical
adversaries,
however,
because
the
dominant
theory
of
the
light
of
the
moon
allowed
Clavius
to
conceive
of
31 a
theory
that
was
empirically
equivalent
to
Galileo’s
for
all
observations
made
at
that
point.
Galileo
even
admitted
through
Sagredo
in
Dialogue
Concerning
Two
Chief
World
Systems
that
some
of
his
observed
phenomena
can
be
imitated
by
other
theories,
such
as
Clavius’,
but
that
we
“should
waste
no
time
on
this
in
ǡ ǥ ϐ this
very
sensible
truth
could
well
be
adjudged
to
have
lost
his
wits.”38
As
a
scientist
considering
which
few
ϐ worthy
of
serious
testing,
Galileo
made
a
projectibility
judgment
concerning
Clavius’
“absurd”
alternate
theory
and
deemed
it
unnecessary
to
test
with
a
crucial
experiment.
What
is
interesting
about
the
theory
of
light
and
the
theory
of
immutability
of
the
heavens,
which
Clavius
used
to
explain
Galileo’s
observations
of
a
moon
with
a
smooth
surface,
is
that
they
were
grounded
in
well-‐established
theories
of
the
time.
With
regard
to
Medieval
theory,
they
were
not
that
“absurd”
or
unprojectible
at
all.
In
light
of
accepted
principles
concerning
the
smoothness
of
the
moon’s
surface,
Goudin
proposed
that
“since
absolute
void
is
not
possible,
we
must
believe
that
this
unequal
surface
is
equalized
by
a
transparent
substance…nothing
prevents
us
from
considering
the
globe
as
spherical.”39
Goudin’s
conclusion
is
another
example
of
how
many
other
possible
theories
grounded
in
presuppositions
of
the
day
predicted
the
same
observations
as
Galileo’s.
For
Galileo,
the
shading
of
small
spots
on
the
moon
on
the
side
of
the
spot
close
to
the
sun
was
evidence
Ǥ ϐ by
stating,
“we
have
an
almost
entirely
similar
sight
on
earth,
around
sunrise,
when
the
valleys
are
not
yet
bathed
in
light
but
the
surrounding
mountains
facing
the
sun
are
already
seen
shining
with
light.
And
just
as
the
shadows
of
the
earthly
valleys
are
diminished
as
the
sun
climbs
higher,
so
those
lunar
spots
lose
their
darkness.”40
Galileo
presupposed
that
the
moon
is
like
the
earth—but
that
likeness
was
counterintuitive
to
the
well-‐accepted
Aristotelian
theories
concerning
the
difference
between
the
celestial
and
terrestrial
realms
and
the
immaculacy
of
the
moon.
Further,
as
Ariew
points
out,
Galileo
presupposed
a
different
optical
theory
than
Clavius:
he
assumed
that
light
was
only
ϐ Ǥ41
Yet,
as
mentioned
before,
the
well-‐established
theory
of
Averroes’
texts
was
entirely
different:
by
the
preconceptions
of
the
day,
if
the
moon,
ǡ ϐ ǡ could
see
the
image
of
the
sun
in
it.
The
moon,
after
all,
appeared
to
be
illuminated
itself.
To
many
Aristotelians,
Galileo’s
auxiliary
hypotheses
were
not
projectible,
yet
he
presupposed
them—potentially
because
they
were
essential
to
the
coherence
of
his
theory.
There
were
other
assumptions
that
Galileo
could
have
used
to
interpret
his
data
and
conclude
that
the
moon’s
mountains
were
caused
by
shadows,
not
rarer
and
denser
parts.
The
painter
Cigoli
lauded
the
Galileo
for
his
interest
in
perspective
art
and
technique.
For
his
talent,
Galileo
was
admitted
to
the
artistic
Accademia
de
Disegno.42
Edgerton
comments
that
in
1609,
the
year
of
Galileo’s
observations,
the
Italian
Renaissance
ϐ of
perspective
painting.43
In
England,
however,
where
Harriot
performed
his
work,
artists
still
embraced
gothic
styles.44
While
it
is
possible
that
Harriot
read
a
tutorial
on
perspective
art
to
gain
the
skill
Galileo
acquired,
it
is
improbable
because
the
demand
for
those
texts
in
London
was
at
the
minimal
at
the
time.
Edgerton
points
out
that
Galileo
might
have
combined
his
theory
ϐ theory
in
painting
in
order
to
develop
an
“eye,”
so
to
speak,
for
recognizing
shadows
and
geometrical
forms
representing
elevation.45
It
is
plausible
that
because
Harriot
was
trained
as
an
English
cartographer
and
sailor,
the
details
that
he
deemed
relevant
in
observation
of
the
moon
and
in
the
construction
of
his
maps
of
the
moon
(often
labeled
“inferior”
to
Galileo’s
today)
were
those
relevant
to
the
map
making
he
did
best— details
concerning
the
boundaries
between
land
and
sea.46
The
criteria
outlined
above,
which
worked
their
way
into
the
judgments
determining
which
theories
were
relevant
and
which
were
not
on
both
sides
of
the
controversy,
involved
no
testing
of
the
alternate
theories
that
each
scientist
supported.
They
were
truly
extra-‐experimental
criteria.
Conclusion Galileo
used
arguments
such
as
the
one
from
the
lens
maker’s
theory
to
make
the
case
that
the
phenomena
he
observed
were
indeed
observable
and,
in
light
of
knowledge
empiricism,
meaningful.
His
critics
used
arguments
such
as
the
one
from
the
ghost
theory
to
argue
that
Galileo
presupposed
his
theory
over
theories
that
were
indistinguishable
from
it
without
ϐ Ȅ Dz dz fact
not
meaningful.
Galileo
argued
that
his
telescope
was
reliable
for
some
objects
but
not
all
objects.
What
governed
his
use
of
that
argument
was
not
explored
in
depth
here,
but
we
can
speculate
that
Galileo
employed
his
argument
in
light
of
projectibility.
For
example,
Galileo
did
not
assert
the
telescope’s
reliability
in
seeing
the
sun
during
an
eclipse
because
it
was
not
believed
by
any
scientists
that
the
sun
split
into
three.
When
his
telescope
revealed
that
there
were
colored
fringes
around
objects
in
the
sky,
he
discounted
these
ϐ Copernican
paradigm
that
he
supported.
32
The
Aristotelian
methodology
of
proof
involved
knowledge
of
physics
to
dismiss
him
without
even
induction
through
the
senses
to
hit
on
fundamental
looking
at
his
machine.”52
premises,
and
deduction
from
those
premises
to
a
The
arguments
from
the
lens
maker’s
theory
47 conclusion
that
necessarily
followed.
In
the
Dialogue
that
Galileo
strategically
used
to
bolster
the
reliability
Concerning
Two
Chief
World
Systems,
Galileo
responded of
his
telescope,
to
make
his
observations
observable,
through
Salviati
to
Simplicio’s
accusations
that
his
to
accuse
his
adversaries
of
doing
bad
science,
and
to
ϐ ϐ ǡ highlighting
how
“Aristotle,
as
he
said
many
times,
his
adversaries
used
to
show
that
the
telescope
was
preferred
sensible
experience
to
any
argument.”48
unreliable,
that
Galileo
did
not
rely
on
observable
data,
ϐ ǡ ϐ ǯ ϐ ǣ were
meaningless,
depend
on
an
idealization
of
“good”
“If
what
we
are
discussing
were
a
point
of
law
science
that
is
not
descriptive
of
how
science
works
in
or
of
the
humanities…one
might
expect
him
who
practice. excelled
in
those
things
to
make
his
reasoning
Even
if
the
telescope’s
reliability
were
taken
for
most
plausible…but
in
the
natural
sciences,
granted,
it
did
not
“reveal”
in
any
direct
way
the
rough
whose
conclusions
are
true
and
necessary
and
surface
of
the
moon.
As
stated
earlier,
for
any
theory
have
nothing
to
do
with
human
will,
one
must
ϐ ǡ ϐ not
place
himself
on
the
defense
of
error,
for
other
theories
will
describe
the
data
in
full,
but
posit
here
a
thousand…would
be
unable
to
overcome
a
different
unobserved
causal
phenomena.
In
order
for
mediocre
wit
who…hit
upon
the
truth.”49
scientists
to
progress,
they
must
distinguish
between
ϐ empirically
inequivalent
theories
without
performing
above
posit
that
good
science
is
a
pure
induction
from
a
crucial
experiment,
and
they
routinely
do.
Galileo’s
the
senses
to
true,
necessary,
and
eternal
conclusions.
conclusion
was
one
of
many
of
conclusions
that
could
be
Presupposition
or
judgments
of
plausibility
have
drawn
from
the
data
supplied
by
his
instrument.
Clavius
no
place.
One
of
Galileo’s
and
Goudin
certainly
relied
main
arguments
in
support
on
theory
and
judgment
to
of
his
lunar
observations
dismiss
Galileo’s
conclusion
ϔ was
brought
out
through
and
draw
their
own
from
Salviati:
“now
we,
thanks
to
stating,
“we
have
an
almost
entirely
his
data.
His
opponents,
the
telescope,
have
brought
similar
sight
on
earth,
around
however,
relied
on
intuitive
the
heavens
thirty
or
forty
sunrise,
when
the
valleys
are
not
yet
theories
of
the
moon
and
the
times
closer
to
us
than
they
heavens
that
were
grounded
were
to
Aristotle,
so
that
we
bathed
in
light
but
the
surrounding
in
the
Christian-‐Aristotelian
can
discern
many
things
in
mountains
facing
the
sun
are
paradigm
of
what
constituted
them
that
he
could
not
see.”50
already
seen
shining
with
light.
And
“good
science”
at
the
time.
He
accused
his
opponents
just
as
the
shadows
of
the
earthly
Even
Cremonini
relied
on
the
of
justifying
that
“heaven
obvious
difference
between
valleys
are
diminished
as
the
sun
is
inalterable
because
the
heavens
and
the
terrestrial
Aristotle
was
so
persuaded
climbs
higher,
so
those
lunar
spots
realm
in
not
looking
into
the
by
reasoning.”51
Implicit
telescope.
Galileo,
despite
lose
their
darkness.” here
was
that
his
opponents
his
accusations,
relied
on
turned
a
blind
eye
to
the
extra-‐experimental
theories
brute
observable
facts
supplied
by
the
telescope— to
draw
his
conclusion
as
well.
Surprisingly,
however,
they
appealed
not
to
knowledge
from
observation,
ǯ ǡ ϐ but
knowledge
from
dogma.
The
arguments
Galileo
of
the
moon
and
that
the
moon
is
similar
to
earth,
stated
for
the
reliability
of
the
telescope
allowed
him
were
counterintuitive.
Galileo
was
able
to
“see”
a
to
state
what
Salviati
said
above.
The
portrayal
of
his
rough
surface
on
the
moon
in
part
because
embedded
adversaries
set
out
by
Salviati
lives
on
today.
Cesare
in
his
reasoning
were
presuppositions
of
perspective
Cremonini
has
often
been
portrayed
as
appealing
to
an
art—presuppositions
that
the
sailor
Harriot,
the
Jesuit
Ǧ ϐ Clavius,
and
Goudin,
did
not
have.
It
is
hard
to
dismiss
standards
when
he
refused
even
to
look
into
Galileo’s
Galileo’s
work
as
“bad
science”—and
it
is,
in
light
of
the
telescope.
Schuster,
though,
complicates
this
portrayal
ǡ ϐ since,
“after
all,
if
someone…said
he
was
going
to
give
the
work
of
Galileo’s
adversaries
as
“not
objective.”
Both
you
perpetual
motion…you
would
use
your
theoretical
sides
in
this
controversy
employed
presuppositions—
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
33 some
of
them
grounded
in
religion
and
traditional
science,
others
in
art—in
distinguishing
between
theories
and
making
judgments
of
projectibility.
As
has
been
shown
throughout,
such
judgments
are
not
ϐ Ǥ
The
artist
Cigoli
criticized
Clavius’
blindness
in
not
accepting
the
obvious
knowledge
of
sight.
He
said,
“I
was
most
astonished
by
the
opinion
of
Father
Clavius
about
the
Moon:
that
he
doubts
its
unevenness
because
it
appears
to
him
more
probable
that
it
is
not
of
uniform
density.
Now,
I
have
thought
and
thought
about
this,
ϐ ǡ be
he
as
great
as
he
wants,
a
mathematician
without
disegno
[painting
ability]
is
not
only
a
mediocre
mathematician,
but
also
a
man
without
eyes.”53
Clavius,
Cremonini,
Harriot,
and
Goudin,
were,
of
course,
not
“men
without
eyes.”
Their
empirically
equivalent
(at
least
for
observations
made
through
the
telescope
at
the
time)
theories
and
conclusions
took
account
of
visible
data
just
as
much
as
Galileo’s
conclusion
did.
Where
they
differed
from
Galileo
was
not
in
the
amount
of
rationality
with
which
they
approached
the
problem,
but
in
their
presuppositions,
the
paradigms
and
theories
they
took
for
granted,
and
their
assumptions
of
what
was
important
in
making
a
map
or
looking
at
a
picture.
Methodology
on
both
sides
was
equally
laden
with
non-‐experimental
theory.
It
was
presupposition
that
ultimately
allowed
each
party
to
“see”
a
rough
or
smooth
surface
on
the
moon.
Endnotes 1
Boyd,
R.
Philosophy
of
Science
Lecture
1.
Presented
at
a
PHIL3810
lecture
at
Cornell
University
.
(2008,
Sept.
3). ʹ ǡ Ǥ Dz ϐ Ǥdz Social
Studies
of
Science
,15
(1985):
7-‐8. 3
Biagioli,
M.
Galileo,
Courtier.
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1994),
95. 4
Galilei,
G.
Dialogue
Concerning
Two
Chief
World
Systems.
Translated
by
S.
Drake
Berkeley
(University
of
California
Press,
1967),
56. 5
Boyd,
R.
Philosophy
of
Science
Lecture
2.
Presented
at
a
PHIL3810
lecture
at
Cornell
University,
(2008,
Sept
8). ϐ Dz dz Ǥ 7
Galilei,
G.
In
Sidereus
Nuncius,
edited
by
A.
Helden.
(Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press,
1989),
38. 8
Ibid.,
38. 9
Ibid.,
36. 10
Boyd,
R.
Philosophy
of
Science
Lecture
2.
Presented
at
a
PHIL3810
lecture
at
Cornell
University,
(2008,
Sept
8). 11
Ibid. 12
Thomason,
N.
“Elk
Theories.”
In
Natural
Kinds,
Laws
of
Nature,
ϔ ,
edited
by
P.
Riggs,
123-‐144
(Boston:
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers,
1996),
130 13
Galilei,
Sidereus
Nuncius,
57. 14
Ibid.,
93. 15
Brown,
H.
“Galileo
on
the
Telescope
and
the
Eye.”
Journal
of
the
History
of
Ideas
(1985):487-‐501. 16
Butler,
S.
“Hudibras:
The
Elephant
in
the
Moon.”
In
The
Works
of
English
Poets,
from
Chaucer
to
Cowper,
edited
by
A.
Chalmers,
187-‐194
(University
of
California,
2007),
187-‐8. 17
Ibid.,
189. 18
Ibid.,
190. 19
Thomason,
“Elk
Theories.”
In
Natural
Kinds,
Laws
of
Nature,
ϔ ,
132. 20
Koertge,
N.
“Galileo
and
the
Problem
of
Accidents.”
Journal
of
the
History
of
Ideas,
(1977):392 21
Galilei,
Sidereus
Nuncius,
38. 22
Ibid.,
57. 23
Ibid.,
58. 24
Ibid.,
111. 25
Ibid.,
41. 26
Boyd,
R.
Philosophy
of
Science
Lecture
2.
Presented
at
a
PHIL3810
lecture
at
Cornell
University,
(2008,
Sept
8). 27
Bloom,
T.
“Borrowed
Perceptions:
Harriot’s
Maps
of
the
Moon.”
Journal
for
the
History
of
Astronomy,
9
(1978):
117. 28
Alexander,
A.
“Lunar
Maps
and
Coastal
Outlines:
Thomas
Hariot’s
Mapping
of
the
Moon.)
Studies
in
History
and
Philosophy
of
Science
(1998):
347. 29
Bloom,
“Borrowed
Perceptions:
Harriot’s
Maps
of
the
Moon,”
117 30
Galilei,
Sidereus
Nuncius,
111 31
Ariew,
R.
“Galileo’s
Lunar
Observations
in
the
Context
of
Medieval
Lunar
Theory.”
Studies
in
History
and
Philosophy
of
Science
15
no.
3
(1984):
218 32
Ibid.,
219. 33
Ibid.,
222. 34
Ostrow,
S.
“Cigoli’s
Immacolata
and
Galileo’s
Moon:
Astronomy
and
the
Virgin
in
Early
Seicento
Rome.”
The
Art
Bulletin
,
78
no.
2
(1996):
225. 35
Ariew,
“Galileo’s
Lunar
Observations
in
the
Context
of
Medieval
Lunar
Theory,”
222. 36
Ibid. 37
Ariew,
R.
“The
Initial
Response
to
Galileo’s
Lunar
Observations.”
Studies
in
History
and
Philosophy
of
Science,
32
no.
3
(2001):
574. 38
Galilei,
Dialogue
Concerning
Two
Chief
World
Systems,
87. 39
Ariew,
R.
“Scholastics
and
the
New
Astronomy
on
the
Substance
of
the
Heavens.”
In
Descartes
and
the
Last
of
the
Scholastics,
edited
by
R.
Ariew,
97-‐119.
(Ithaca:
Cornell
University
Press,
1999),
108. 40
Galilei,
Sidereus
Nuncius,
41 41
Ariew,
“Galileo’s
Lunar
Observations
in
the
Context
of
Medieval
Lunar
Theory,”
214. 42
Edgerton,
S.
“Galileo,
Florentine
“Disegno,”
and
the
“Strange
Spottednesse”
of
the
Moon.”
Art
Journal
,
44
no.
3
(1984),
225. 43
Ibid.,
228. 44
Ibid. 45
Ibid.,
227. 46
Alexander,
“Lunar
Maps
and
Coastal
Outlines:
Thomas
Hariot’s
Mapping
of
the
Moon,”
352. 47
McMullin,
E.
“The
Conception
of
Science
in
Galileo’s
Works.”
In
New
Perspectives
on
Galileo,
edited
by
R.
Butts,
&
J.
Pitt,
209-‐252.
(Boston:
D.
Reidel
Publishing
Company,
1975),
211-‐9 48
Galilei,
Dialogue
Concerning
Two
Chief
World
Systems,
51 49
Ibid.,
54. 50
Ibid.,
56. 51
Ibid. 52
Schuster,
J.
ϔ ǣ history
and
philosophy
of
science.
(Sydney:
School
of
History
and
Philosophy
of
Science
UNSW,
2005),
138. 53
Booth,
S.
“The
Virgin
and
the
Telescope.”
Science
in
Context
,
13
(2000):
473.
34
INTERVIEW:
Andrew
Berry Author,
Research
Associate
at
the
Museum
of
Comparative
Zoology Interviewed by Maggie Jack, Harvard ‘09 It
is
different
to
read
about
science
than
go
to
a
I
ended
up,
rather
serendipitously
and
fortunistically,
science
museum. working
with
a
really
cool
guy
named
Allen
Crighton
Do
you
believe
in
science
museums?
Those
are
not
in
evolutionary
genetics.
But,
I’m
being
the
modern
commensurate
in
my
opinion.
I
mean,
ideally,
they
would
man,
and
followed
my
wife.
She
got
a
job
here,
a
full
be.
But
the
chemistry
set,
you
have
some
guidelines,
but
professorship
at
Harvard,
so
I
came
up
here
too.
I
post-‐ you
can
really
do
stuff.
Whereas
the
museum
–
modern
doc-‐ed
in
various
capacities
for
several
years
with
Dick
museums
–
have
the
mistaken
desire
to
recreate
that
Lewontin.
freedom
and
that
interactivity.
And
they
fail.
They
are
That
was
in
about
what
year?
In
the
80s? supposed
to
be
this
great
leap
beyond
the
traditional,
restrained,
miserable
Victorian
museum,
which
was
just
[Shocked]
It’s
time
to
dye
my
hair;
it
was
the
nineties,
in
a
repository
for
badly
presented
information.
But
the
fact.
So,
I
was
always
associated
with
Dick’s
lab
somehow.
Victorian
museum
in
my
opinion
is
just
so
much
more
It
was
totally
a
grand
total
of
6
years
or
so.
My
wife
is
doing
well,
everything’s
ok,
but
I’m
the
world’s
expert
on
effective
than
the
modern
museum. a
small
section
of
the
fourth
chromosome
of
drosophila.
ǡ ǡ ϐ Why? community,
but
it’s
kind
of
boring,
isn’t
it?
I
don’t
have
Because
there
is
so
much
there.
I
feel
personally
about
ϐ ǡ ǡ Ǥ this.
As
you
probably
know,
the
Museum
of
Comparative
I’ve
never
had
a
deep
desire
to
be
a
Nobel
Prize
winner.
Zoology
here
is
slated
to
be
moved
to
Allston
and
ǡ ϐ changed
into
a
modern
interactive
museum.
You
will
works.
You
start
off
interested
in
something,
in
my
case,
take
something
that
is
potentially…
not
necessarily,
I
evolutionary
biology.
Then
you
go
to
graduate
school,
and
mean,
plenty
of
school
kids
just
run
right
through
it
you
seriously
specialize,
so
that
became
condensed
down
and
get
nothing
out
of
it,
but
potentially,
because
there
to
the
evolutionary
genetics
of
one
boring
species.
Then
is
so
much
there,
if
a
child
wants
to
look
and
learn
they
you
post
doc,
and
you
transfer
the
tools
you
have
learned
really
can,
just
because
of
the
density
of
information.
as
a
graduate
student
to
another
lab.
In
the
meantime,
You
can
go
back
to
the
same
hall
and
learn
something
you
are
probably
publishing
papers
and
probably
new
each
time.
Whereas,
the
modern
museum
will
be
expanding
on
the
work
you
did
as
a
graduate
student.
So
beautiful
the
lighting
will
be
perfect,
and
there
will
be
ϐ Ǥ one
specimen
there.
There
will
be
the
little
interactive
you
get
a
faculty
position
and
you
are
tenure
track
for
six
things,
which
will
instantly,
almost
from
the
moment
years.
Man,
you
are
in
a
rut.
This
is
your
thing,
and
you
they
are
installed,
look
out
of
date.
There
is
just
so
much
are
the
go-‐to
person
for
this
thing.
It’s
incredibly
narrow.
less
there.
I
still
think
and
feel
quite
passionately
about
It
is
such
a
tiny
little
piece
of
masonry
in
the
huge
wall
of
it.
A
natural
history
museum
should
be
about
engaging
ϐ Ǥ Ǧ ǡ Ǥ people
about
biological
diversity,
and
the
natural
history
It’s
all
part
of
the
process.
But
my
problem
was,
well,
I’m
museum
does
that.
an
expert
in
some
DNA
sequence
on
a
chromosome
in
ϐ drosophila,
but
I’m
interested
in
evolution.
Evolution! I
wanted
to
get
back
to
what
I
was
interested
in.
of
science.
Could
you
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
your
And
one
way
to
do
that
is
teaching.
Teaching
is
great!
career? I
teach
an
introductory
evolution
class,
OEB
53,
and
ǡ ϐ Ǥ ǯ it
is
very,
very
broad.
I
get
to
teach
about
drosophila
because
I
don’t
run
a
lab.
I
am
a
lecturer
here.
I
teach,
population
genetics,
which
is
what
I
generally
know
and
I
am
paid
as
a
student
advisor.
So
I
did
science
for
about,
but
I
also
get
to
teach
about
the
fossil
record,
and
20
years
or
so,
then
I
got
bored
with
it.
And
I’m
not
a
real
why
the
dinosaurs
went
extinct,
and
it
is
all
part
of
the
historian
of
science
either. same
great
process.
I’m
not
an
expert
in
all
those
things,
but
as
a
teacher,
that
is
OK
because
I’m
not
expected
to
So
how
did
you
get
involved
with
it? be
an
expert.
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
35 So,
having
become
somewhat
disenchanted
with
my
rut,
what
do
you
do
if
you
are
as
overeducated
as
I
am?
I
don’t
have
any
nonacademic
skills.
I
did
some
freelance
teaching,
which
is
quite
fun.
And
wrote,
which
isn’t
very
enriching
and
seldom
fun…
but
that
is
how
I
became
a
historian
of
science.
I
wrote
some
articles
for
the
UK
equivalent
for
the
New
York
Review
of
Books,
the
London
Review
of
Books.
I
don’t
know
even
how
they
got
onto
me.
I
was
a
card-‐ carrying,
genuine
evolutionary
biologist
who
putatively
could
write.
So
they
had
me
do
a
piece
or
two
on
Darwin,
I
think.
Then
they
wanted
me
to
do
a
piece
on
Alfred
Russell
Wallace.
I
told
them
that
I
knew
nothing,
or
what
everybody
knows
about
Wallace,
that
he
is
the
other
guy.
To
do
that
piece,
I
had
to
read
some
Wallace,
which
is
great,
he
was
a
wonderful
guy
and
brilliant.
Having
published
the
piece,
people
assumed
I
must
know
something
about
history
of
science.
So
a
publisher
asked
me
to
write
for
them,
to
put
together
a
book
on
Alfred
Russsell
Wallace.
Since
then,
I
occasionally
get
invited
to
history
of
science
conferences
as
a
Wallace
man,
and
I
feel
slightly
bogus.
it’s
very
progressive.
It
ignores
social
factors
and
so
on.
And
it
always
ends
with
the
truth,
which
is
what
we
now
know.
The
old
guys
made
mistakes.
And,
I’m
guilty
of
all
those
things,
to
some
extent.
To
some
extent,
all
those
things
are
defensible.
Wallace,
for
example,
and
Darwin.
Let’s
face
it.
It’s
one
of
the
best
ideas.
Evolution
by
natural
selection
was
the
best
idea
in
humanity,
except
possibly
the
invention
of
the
bicycle. That’s
a
pretty
strong
statement. I’m
leaving
myself
a
minor
out
with
the
bicycle.
No,
it
solves
so
many
problems!
It
explains
where
we
stand,
human
beings,
our
connection
to
the
world.
That’s
a
pretty
big
one.
And
it
explains
the
natural
world.
It’s
a
stunningly
rich
idea.
How
do
you
write
as
a
historian?
I
don’t
write
as
a
historian.
I
write
in
a
way
that
is
easy
to
read,
and
accessible,
and
coherent.
Some
of
your
colleagues
–
historians
aren’t
the
worse
–
but
some
of
the
dribble
that
comes
out
of
philosophers,
or
literary
critics,
what
is
their
problem?
To
write,
in
writing,
you
are
trying
to
communicate.
As
a
scientist,
ϐ in
particular,
even
the
most
complicated
idea
should
writing
history
of
science? be
communicable.
How
did
I
learn
how
to
write?
I’m
The
main
challenge
is
rising
above
the
disdain
English.
It
was
a
major
part
of
my
education.
of
historians
of
science,
who,
with
some
mild
legitimacy,
So
you
are
interested
in
popularization
of
science? characterize
scientists
telling
the
story
of
history
of
science.
It
is
usually
a
triumphalist
march
through
Oh,
yeah.
I
feel
quite
passionately
about
this.
There
is
all
of
the
correct
of
pathways
and
it
tends
to
focus
on
no
real
reason
that
science
should
be
obscure
and
scary.
individuals,
kind
of
heroes.
It’s
very
individual-‐based,
Science
should
be
communicable.
36
ϐ ǣ Ǯ ǯ By Brian Na, Harvard ‘09 The
castaway,
who
by
now
is
quite
well
educated
and
curious
about
the
world,
forms
the
habit
of
taking
a
walk
on
the
beach
early
in
the
morning.
Here
he
regularly
comes
upon
bottles…[that]
are
tightly
corked
and
each
one
contains
a
single
piece
of
paper
in
it…he
is
anxious
to
evaluate
the
messages
properly
and
so
take
advantage
of
the
information
that
they
convey.
1 - Walker
Percy,
The
Message
in
the
Bottle
In
his
1975
book,
The
Message
in
the
Bottle,
Walker
Percy,
a
Southern
Catholic
writer,
commented
on
the
growing
use
of
psychiatric
medication
to
treat
anxiety
and
depression.
Asserting
that
these
drugs
would
dull
people
to
the
Christian
God,
he
wrote
that
feelings
such
as
anxiety
were
common
in
life,
which
enhanced
the
possibility
of
people
accepting
that
there
was
a
higher
power
in
the
world.
Percy
argued
that
people
would
receive
disconnected
signs
from
God,
portraying
them
as
discrete
messages
in
bottles.
This
would
lead
people
to
decide
whether
they
would
accept
God’s
plan
for
salvation
from
these
worries.
With
the
advent
of
psychopharmacological
drugs,
Percy
was
disappointed
that
for
most
people,
freedom
from
anxiety
did
not
lay
in
God
anymore,
but
rather
in
pills.
Needless
to
say,
though
the
use
of
Ritalin
does
not
apply
here
perfectly,
Percy
pointed
to
a
trend
in
American
society
in
taking
everyday
human
emotions
and
medicalizing
them.
With
the
inclusion
of
ADD
in
the
list
of
learning
disabilities
in
the
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education
Act
in
1990,
Ritalin
usage
skyrocketed
in
the
United
States.
In
1987,
approximately
sixty
million
daily
doses
were
produced
for
use
in
the
United
States,
which
increased
to
about
70
million
by
1990.
After
1990,
the
number
of
daily
doses
produced
more
than
doubled
every
year
until
1997,
when
growth
ϐ Ǥ2
This
increase
was
due
in
part
to
the
federal
legislation
on
ADD
that
helped
make
medication
a
primary
solution.
However,
another
underlying
–
and
perhaps
more
important
–
trend
is
the
acceptance
of
Ritalin
as
a
miracle
drug
that
could
deliver
a
problem
child
from
all
of
his
woes
as
well
as
the
woes
of
his
parents
and
teachers.
This
is
not
‘cosmetic
psychopharmacology,’
but
rather
a
social
construction
of
a
disease
that
had
a
medication
already
available
for
it.3
Ritalin
had
become
a
dependable
tool
for
teachers
in
helping
them
to
meet
the
demands
of
mainstreaming
as
well
as
maintaining
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
order
in
the
classroom.
However,
it
also
became
a
crutch
used
by
many
parents
to
place
the
blame
for
their
child’s
woes
not
on
themselves,
but
on
a
biological
etiology,
Dz ϐ dz ǯ problems.
The
message
in
the
bottle
had
transformed
to
become
a
pill
in
the
bottle
–
Ritalin
had
become
the
savior
for
the
child,
parents,
psychiatrists
and
educators
Ǥ ϐ Ritalin’s
position
in
modern
society,
it
was
no
surprise
then,
that
an
advertisement
for
a
generic
stimulant
drug,
Concerta,
in
November
2008
featured
an
ADD
child
who,
after
taking
the
drug,
became
a
high-‐achieving
student
invested
in
learning.4
At
this
very
moment,
the
American
Psychiatric
Association
(APA)
is
currently
undertaking
a
comprehensive
revision
of
the
Diagnostic
and
Statistical
Manual
of
Mental
Disorders,
and
it
is
clear
that
ADHD
will
remain
in
the
book
that
many
have
termed
the
“psychiatric
bible.”
However,
debate
has
now
arisen
over
whether
to
include
adult
ADHD
as
a
subtype
of
the
diagnosis,
as
traditionally
it
has
been
believed
only
to
affect
children.
This
is
unsurprising,
given
that
ADHD
research
has
from
the
beginning
centered
on
teachers’
ratings
and
school
culture.5
In
1995,
Edward
Hallowell
and
John
Ratey,
both
prominent
psychiatrists
who
claim
to
have
ADHD,
wrote
Driven
to
Distraction,
a
book
that
took
the
diagnosis
to
be
ϐ Ȃ ϐ Ȃ to
determine
whether
they
had
the
disease
or
not.6
In
their
follow
up
help
book,
Delivered
from
Distraction,
the
authors
provided
a
scale
called
the
Adult
Self-‐Report
Scale
(ASRS),
which
was
developed
by
two
psychiatrists
in
conjunction
with
the
World
Health
Organization.
ϐ ǡ scale
claimed
to
capture
“70
percent
of
ADD
cases
in
a
random
sample
of
adults.”7
Though
the
ASRS’
claim
that
adult
ADHD
does
ϐ Psychiatric
Association,
at
the
core,
the
discussion
surrounding
the
adult
form
of
diagnosis
is
similar
to
the
discourse
that
surrounded
academic
maladjustment
in
the
1950s.
Now,
however,
the
setting
was
the
workplace,
not
the
school.
For
example,
the
ASRS
asks,
“How
often
ϐ project,
once
the
challenging
parts
are
done?”8
I
posit
that
this
focus
on
work
productivity
is
due
to
an
attitude
of
meritocracy
that
has
been
ingrained
in
the
American
consciousness,
a
culture
in
which
completing
work
37 consistently
well
lent
itself
to
promotion.
Moreover,
as
in
the
days
of
the
Cold
War,
when
academic
maladjustment
was
deemed
to
be
a
matter
of
national
security,
work
productivity
matters
not
only
for
the
worker
himself,
but
also
for
the
country,
whose
companies’
successes
would
bolster
the
nation’s
economic
health
and
standing
in
the
world.
However,
unlike
the
school,
where
the
possibility
lay
open
for
the
teacher
to
adjust
her
standards
for
the
student,
the
work
world
was
different
–
the
environment
could
not
change,
and
as
such,
the
worker
had
to
change
his
ϐ with
the
rest
of
the
crowd.
As
Hallowell
and
Ratey
wrote,
ADD
adults
“took
on
[work
at]
angulated,
monstrous
proportions,
leaving
[them]
feeling
defeated,
dispirited
and
inept.”9
How
have
adults
responded
to
this
message
from
psychiatrists?
How
have
they
understood
this
message
in
the
grander
scheme
of
their
understanding
of
psychiatry
and
life?
At
the
end
of
Delivered
from
Distraction,
the
authors
provided
contact
information
of
adult
ADHD
support
groups
by
geographic
area.
Moreover,
with
the
growth
of
the
Internet,
people
are
seeking
out
adult
ADD
forums
to
discuss
the
implications
of
their
diagnosis
with
others.
ϐ problem
that
has
plagued
them
for
years,
while
others
question
and
even
feel
restricted
by
the
diagnosis,
even
when
admitting
that
Ritalin
has
helped
ameliorate
their
symptoms.10
Unlike
childhood
ADHD,
the
discourse
over
ADHD
points
to
‘cosmetic
psychopharmacology,’
where
an
adult
would
feel
more
productive,
happy
and
secure
about
his
work
productivity.
However,
the
same
questions
are
arising
about
adult
ADHD
even
in
the
context
of
biological
psychiatry;
it
seems
like
no
matter
what
the
time
period,
the
same
fundamental
questions
are
asked
about
this
diagnosis
–
what
does
this
mean
for
me?
Does
being
ADD
change
me
in
any
way?
It
will
be
interesting
to
see
how
the
American
Psychiatric
Association
deals
with
the
adult
ADHD
diagnosis
in
the
DSM-‐V,
scheduled
to
be
published
in
2012.
With
respect
to
childhood
ADHD,
however,
there
has
been
an
effort
on
the
part
of
several
educators
to
bring
back
alternative
treatments
for
hyperactivity
that
focus
on
changing
the
environment.
In
particular,
in
Minnesota,
Ms.
Brown,
an
elementary
school
teacher,
along
with
the
help
of
a
furniture
company,
designed
an
adjustable-‐ height
school
desk
that
allowed
students
to
sit
or
stand
as
much
as
they
liked
without
disrupting
the
class.
The
principal
of
the
school,
Lynn
Bormann,
noted
that
there
were
already
changes
in
standardized
exam
scores
and
the
children’s
demeanors
and
approach
to
learning.
Featured
in
The
New
York
Times,
the
desk
has
grown
in
popularity
amongst
elementary
school
educators
across
the
country.
Dr.
James
Levine,
a
professor
of
medicine
at
the
Mayo
Clinic
and
advocate
of
“activity-‐permissive”
classrooms,
has
argued
that
educators
“had
to
change
to
meet
their
[students’]
needs.”11
38
‘Ritalin
fatigue’
had
set
in,
and
popular
books
from
Washington
Post
article
was
published,
other
more
psychiatrists,
such
as
Richard
De
Grandpre’s
Ritalin
sensationalist
headlines
–
“Pills
for
Classroom
Peace?,”
Nation
and
Lawrence
Diller’s
Running
on
Ritalin,
have
“The
Drugged
Classroom,”
“Drug-‐Pushing
in
Schools”
–
called
into
question
the
fundamental
assumptions
appeared
in
newspapers
across
the
country.14
Although
ϐ only
150,000
out
of
over
38
million
elementary
school
decade
of
the
twentieth
children
were
on
the
Ritalin
century,
stating
that,
though
in
1970,
many
Americans
felt
there
are
children
who
need
that
a
majority
of
children
Ritalin
to
function,
the
vast
In
effect,
people
are
still
trying
to
were
on
the
drug
due
in
part
majority
of
ADD
“sufferers”
make
sense
of
what
psychiatric
to
media
sensationalism.15
simply
need
the
loving
care
of
medication
actually
means
in
the
The
public
looked
to
the
their
parents
and
teachers,
a
human
experience
–
is
the
‘pill
in
federal
government
to
resolve
common
refrain
from
the
days
this
contentious
issue
over
the
bottle’
the
way
to
go
about
of
maladjustment.
In
effect,
drug
use
on
children,
as
the
people
are
still
trying
to
make
addressing
negative
behaviors
and
Food
and
Drug
Administration
sense
of
what
psychiatric
emotions?
In
the
end,
the
answer
to
(FDA)
had
approved
Ritalin
in
medication
actually
means
in
1961.
this
q uestion
a nd
t he
d ecisions
a nd
the
human
experience
–
is
the
After
hearing
from
a
great
‘pill
in
the
bottle’
the
way
to
interpretations
that
adults
make
number
of
psychiatrists
on
go
about
addressing
negative
affect
the
livelihood
of
children.
the
issue,
the
Congressional
behaviors
and
emotions?
In
ǡ ϔ ϐ the
end,
the
answer
to
this
FDA’s
position
on
Ritalin
question
and
the
decisions
remains
a
hotly
contested
diagnosis
as
a
behavioral
corrective.
and
interpretations
that
adults
to
this
very
day,
holding
implications
They
wrote
that
Ritalin,
and
make
affect
the
livelihood
of
not
only
for
a
child’s
ability
to
other
stimulant
drugs,
were
children.
As
such,
Attention
succeed,
but
also
for
what
it
means
a
“valid
method
of
treatment
ϐ in
hyperkinetic
behavioral
to
b e
a
c hild. contested
diagnosis
to
this
disorders…[and]
the
use
of
very
day,
holding
implications
therapeutic
stimulants
for
not
only
for
a
child’s
ability
to
this
disturbance
should
not
be
succeed,
but
also
for
what
it
means
to
be
a
child. equated
with
the
misuse
of
medication
aimed
at
allowing
a
normal
child
or
adult
to
avoid
or
escape
the
ordinary
stresses
of
life.”16
The
conclusion
of
the
Congressional
ϐ ǣ hearing
marked
a
watershed
moment
in
treating
ϐ Ǯ ǯ the
area
to
develop
a
less
subjective
method
to
identify
Before
1970,
educators
rejected
“minimal
brain
hyperactive
students.
Two
years
later,
a
pediatric
psychopharmacology
dysfunction/damage”
as
a
diagnosis
in
the
schools,
study
in
Boston
made
national
headlines.
Based
implementing
the
learning
disabilities
model
instead.
at
the
Boston
State
Hospital,
researchers
from
By
adopting
this
new
standard,
schools
were
able
to
formalize
the
hyperactivity
diagnosis
and
support
the
use
the
Massachusetts
Department
of
Mental
Health
Ǥ ϐ and
the
Hospital
examined
the
effects
of
three
on
hyperactivity,
it
seemed
to
many
that
this
diagnosis
psychopharmacological
drugs
on
children
with
and
corresponding
treatment
would
remain
for
the
behavioral
disorders.
Several
organizations,
namely
the
Fort
Hill
Mental
Health
Association,
protested
the
foreseeable
future.
This
would
all
change
in
1970
when
the
rationale
behind
the
study,
stating
that
it
was
based
Washington
Post
published
an
article,
which
stated
that
in
science
that
had
not
been
biologically
proven,
an
ten
percent
of
children
in
the
Omaha
public
school
system
argument
that
Szasz
used
in
The
Myth
of
Mental
Illness.
were
on
Ritalin
to
control
their
hyperactivity.12
Described
Because
of
the
controversy,
the
State
Commissioner
of
as
a
“behavior
drug,”
the
article
claimed
that
Ritalin
was
Mental
Health
in
Massachusetts
authorized
a
review
of
used
on
students
that
the
teacher
could
not
control.
the
study
and
found
that
the
project
followed
research
This
became
a
major
concern
amongst
Americans,
who
guidelines.
However,
due
to
the
negative
press
that
had
been
well
aware
about
the
arguments
of
Thomas
surrounded
the
study,
researchers
were
forced
to
Szasz
and
R.D.
Laing
only
a
decade
earlier.13
After
the
terminate
it
because
no
parents
wanted
their
children
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
39 to
 
 participate
 
 in
 
 it.17
 
  In
 
 1975,
 
 in
 
 representing
 
 these
 
 growing
 
 concerns
 
  regarding
 
  stimulant
 
  medication
 
  use
 
  in
 
  children,
 
  journalist
 
  Peter
 
  Schrag
 
  published
 
  The
 
  Myth
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Hyperactive
 
  Child,
 
  which
 
  criticized
 
  hyperactivity
 
  as
 
  a
 
  diagnosis
 
  that
 
  made
 
  teachers’
 
  jobs
 
  easier
 
  and
 
  had
 
  no
 
  basis
 
 in
 
 fact.18
 
 Due
 
 to
 
 Schrag’s
 
 background
 
 as
 
 a
 
 journalist
 
  with
 
  no
 
  teaching
 
  experience
 
  or
 
  science
 
  training,
 
  many
 
  psychiatrists
 
 and
 
 educators
 
 panned
 
 the
 
 book,
 
 dismissing
 
  the
 
  claims
 
  as
 
  sensationalistic.19
 
  However,
 
  several
 
 school
 
  administrators
 
  shared
 
  Schrag’s
 
  main
 
  concerns.
 
  In
 
  1974,
 
  Jeffry
 
  Heller
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Los
 
  Angeles
 
  County
 
  School
 
  District
 
  wrote
 
  that
 
  teachers
 
  turned
 
  too
 
  quickly
 
  to
 
  drugs
 
  in
 
  order
 
  to
 
  modify
 
  children’s
 
  behavior
 
  because
 
  of
 
  the
 
  ease,
 
  describing
 
  the
 
  medications
 
  as
 
  “behavioral
 
  technologies
 
  and
 
 behavioral
 
 engineering.�20
 
 With
 
 growing
 
 discontent
 
  over
 
  hyperactivity
 
  and
 
  Ritalin
 
  as
 
  its
 
  treatment
 
  in
 
  the
 
  public
 
  consciousness,
 
  even
 
  amongst
 
  several
 
  teachers,
 
  educators
 
 and
 
 psychiatrists
 
 alike
 
 had
 
 to
 
 re-Ââ€?conceptualize
 
  hyperactivity
 
  in
 
  a
 
  way
 
  that
 
  would
 
  address
 
  these
 
  new
 
  concerns.
 
 
Honing
 
 in
 
 on
 
 Attention:
 
 From
 
  Diffusion
 
 to
 
 Concentration
 
 
Psychiatrists
 
 took
 
 the
 
 1970
 
 Congressional
 
 hearing
 
  as
 
  an
 
  opportunity
 
  to
 
  take
 
  the
 
  hyperactivity
 
  diagnosis,
 
  originating
 
  from
 
  the
 
  learning
 
  disabilities
 
  framework
 
  of
 
  Samuel
 
  Kirk,
 
  and
 
  making
 
  it
 
  their
 
  own.
 
  In
 
  1972,
 
  Virginia
 
  Douglas,
 
 a
 
 Professor
 
 of
 
 Psychology
 
 at
 
 McGill
 
 University,
 
  published
 
  a
 
  study
 
  in
 
  the
 
 Canadian
 
  Journal
 
  of
 
  Behavioral
 
  Science,
 
  titled
 
  “Stop,
 
  Look
 
  and
 
  Listen:
 
  The
 
  Problem
 
  of
 
  Sustained
 
  Attention
 
  and
 
  Impulse
 
  Control
 
  in
 
  Hyperactive
 
  and
 
  Normal
 
  Children.�21
 
  In
 
  her
 
  article,
 
  Douglas
 
  argued
 
  that
 
 the
 
 term
 
 hyperactivity
 
 was
 
 too
 
 general
 
 in
 
 describing
 
  these
 
  problem
 
  children,
 
  stating
 
  that
 
  the
 
  pathology
 
  •Š‘—Ž† „‡ Ď?‹”•– …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹œ‡† „› ‹–• •›Â?’–‘Â?ƒ–‘Ž‘‰›Ǥ Š‡ focused
 
  particularly
 
  on
 
  the
 
  child’s
 
  attention
 
  span
 
  as
 
  a
 
  measurable
 
 –
 
 and
 
 therefore
 
 diagnostically
 
 useful
 
 –
 
 site
 
 of
 
  dysfunction
 
 instead.
 
 She
 
 wrote
 
 that
 
 hyperactive
 
 children
 
  Šƒ† Dz•Š‘”– ƒ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? •’ƒÂ?• Č?ƒÂ?†Č? –‡Â?†‡† –‘ Ď?Ž‹– ˆ”‘Â? ‘Â?‡ goal
 
 to
 
 another.�22
 
 Using
 
 teacher
 
 reports
 
 to
 
 gauge
 
 Ritalin’s
 
  ‡ˆĎ?Â‹Â…ÂƒÂ…Â›ÇĄ ‘—‰Žƒ• ˆ‘—Â?† –Šƒ– ‹–ƒŽ‹Â? Š‡Ž’‡† …Š‹Ž†”‡Â? †‹”‡…– their
 
  attention
 
  to
 
  schoolwork.
 
  After
 
  receiving
 
  favorable
 
  reviews
 
 by
 
 other
 
 members
 
 of
 
 the
 
 psychiatric
 
 community,
 
  she
 
  published
 
  another
 
  study
 
  on
 
  Ritalin’s
 
  effects
 
  in
 
  helping
 
  hyperactive
 
  children
 
  sustain
 
  attention.23
 
  By
 
  focusing
 
  on
 
  attention,
 
  Douglas
 
  re-Ââ€?conceptualized
 
  what
 
  was
 
 previously
 
 known
 
 as
 
 hyperactivity.
 
  ‡” †‡Ď?‹Â?‹–‹‘Â? ™ƒ• Â?‘–ǥ ‰‡Â?‡”ƒŽŽ› •’‡ƒÂ?‹Â?‰ǥ especially
 
  new,
 
  as
 
  she
 
  readily
 
  admitted;
 
  however,
 
  by
 
  focusing
 
  on
 
  a
 
  singular
 
  symptom
 
  in
 
  what
 
  was
 
  previously
 
  considered
 
 a
 
 diffuse
 
 diagnosis,
 
 she
 
 narrowed
 
 the
 
 disorder
 
 
ƒÂ?† ˆ‘…—•‡† –Š‡ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… †‹•…‘—”•‡ ‘Â? ƒ––‡Â?–‹‘Â?Ǥ ‹Â?‡ the
 
  educators
 
  in
 
  the
 
  1950s
 
  who
 
  believed
 
  that
 
  treating
 
  academic
 
  maladjustment
 
  would
 
  lead
 
  to
 
  adjustment
 
  in
 
  other
 
  areas
 
  of
 
  a
 
  child’s
 
  life,
 
  Douglas
 
  asserted
 
  that
 
  the
 
  foundation
 
 of
 
 all
 
 other
 
 symptoms
 
 present
 
 in
 
 a
 
 hyperactive
 
  child
 
 was
 
 attention
 
 control
 
 –
 
 if
 
 a
 
 child
 
 paid
 
 attention
 
 to
 
  –Š‡ Â–Â‡ÂƒÂ…ÂŠÂ‡Â”ÇĄ Š‡ ™‘—Ž† Â?‘– „‡ Ď?‹†‰‡–›ǥ Šƒ˜‡ –Š‡ ƒ„‹Ž‹–› –‘ control
 
 his
 
 impulses
 
 for
 
 blurting
 
 out
 
 answers,
 
 and
 
 perform
 
  better
 
  on
 
  exams.
 
  Essentially,
 
  he
 
  would
 
  become
 
  adjusted
 
  –
 
  Douglas
 
  herself
 
  stated
 
  that
 
  she
 
  chose
 
  subjects
 
  based
 
  on
 
 how
 
 much
 
 “hyperactivity
 
 interfered
 
 with
 
 adjustment�
 
  in
 
  the
 
  school.24
 
  With
 
  a
 
  new
 
  focus
 
  on
 
  attention
 
  at
 
  hand,
 
  pediatric
 
  psychopharmacological
 
  research
 
  shifted
 
  to
 
  attention
 
 as
 
 a
 
 discrete
 
 category.
 
  In
 
 addition
 
 to
 
 Douglas,
 
 C.
 
 Keith
 
 Conners,
 
 a
 
 child
 
  psychiatrist
 
  who
 
  worked
 
  closely
 
  with
 
  Leon
 
  Eisenberg,
 
  developed
 
  the
 
  Conners
 
  Teacher
 
  Rating
 
  Scale
 
  (CTRS)
 
  in
 
  an
 
 effort
 
 to
 
 distill
 
 teachers’
 
 observations
 
 of
 
 hyperactive
 
  children
 
  in
 
  an
 
  objective
 
  manner.25
 
  Containing
 
  thirty-Ââ€? eight
 
  items,
 
  the
 
  scale
 
  asked
 
  teachers
 
  to
 
  rate
 
  children
 
  ‘Â? „‡Šƒ˜‹‘”• •—…Š ĥ DzĎ?‹†‰‡–‹Â?‰dz ƒÂ?† Ç˛Â†ÂƒÂ›Â†Â”Â‡ÂƒÂ?‹Â?‰Ǥdz
Â? ‘”†‡” –‘ ‹Â?…”‡ƒ•‡ –Š‡ Â•Â…ÂƒÂŽÂ‡ÇŻÂ• •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Ž‡‰‹–‹Â?ÂƒÂ…Â›ÇĄ Conners
 
 closely
 
 matched
 
 the
 
 terms
 
 of
 
 the
 
 CTRS
 
 with
 
 the
 
  Diagnostic
 
  and
 
  Statistical
 
  Manual
 
  of
 
  Mental
 
  Disorders
 
  (DSM).
 
  With
 
  a
 
  new
 
  focus
 
  on
 
  attention
 
  due
 
  to
 
  Douglas’
 
  landmark
 
  study,
 
  psychiatrists
 
  used
 
  Conners’
 
  scale
 
  in
 
  justifying
 
  that
 
  emphasis.
 
  For
 
  example,
 
  in
 
  a
 
  study
 
  that
 
  aimed
 
  to
 
  quantitatively
 
  show
 
  Ritalin’s
 
  tangible
 
  effect
 
  on
 
  the
 
  attention
 
  aspect
 
  of
 
  hyperactivity,
 
  the
 
  researchers
 
  introduced
 
 their
 
 results
 
 by
 
 stating,
 
 “Disorders
 
 of
 
 attention
 
  have
 
  frequently
 
  been
 
  cited
 
  as
 
  a
 
  primary
 
  feature
 
  of
 
  hyperactive
 
  children
 
  based
 
  on
 
  data
 
  from
 
  questionnaires
 
  [CTRS]
 
 and
 
 laboratory
 
 tasks.�26
 
 In
 
 fact,
 
 Douglas
 
 also
 
 used
 
  the
 
  CTRS
 
  in
 
  her
 
  studies
 
  of
 
  attention,
 
  mentioning
 
  that
 
  impulsivity
 
 and
 
 attention
 
 ratings
 
 became
 
 more
 
 favorable
 
  with
 
 treatment.27
 
 It
 
 also
 
 helped
 
 that
 
 teachers
 
 felt
 
 the
 
 CTRS
 
  was
 
 an
 
 appropriate
 
 diagnostic
 
 tool
 
 for
 
 hyperactivity
 
 –
 
 in
 
  1976,
 
  Robert
 
  Havighurst,
 
  Professor
 
  of
 
  Education
 
  at
 
  the
 
  University
 
 of
 
 Chicago,
 
 wrote
 
 that
 
 kindergarten
 
 teachers
 
  should
 
 use
 
 the
 
 scale
 
 at
 
 different
 
 points
 
 during
 
 the
 
 year
 
 to
 
  track
 
 biological
 
 changes
 
 in
 
 their
 
 students.28
 
  In
 
  1980,
 
  the
 
  American
 
  Psychiatric
 
  Association
 
  (APA)
 
  renamed
 
  “hyperkinetic
 
  disorder
 
  of
 
  childhood�
 
  to
 
  Dz ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? ‡Ď?‹…‹– ‹•‘”†‡” Č‹ ČŒÇł ‹Â? –Š‡ –Š‹”† ‡†‹–‹‘Â? of
 
  the
 
  DSM.
 
  Hyperactivity
 
  was
 
  no
 
  longer
 
  an
 
  overarching
 
  theme
 
  but
 
  rather
 
  relegated
 
  to
 
  a
 
  secondary
 
  symptom
 
  in
 
  a
 
  new
 
  attention-Ââ€?based
 
  framework.29
 
  However,
 
  this
 
  …‘Â?…‡’–—ƒŽ •Š‹ˆ– ‡Â?–ƒ‹Ž‡† Â?‘ Â?ƒŒ‘” …ŠƒÂ?‰‡• ‹Â? •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… methodology,
 
 as
 
 all
 
 the
 
 established
 
 tools
 
 used
 
 to
 
 measure
 
  the
 
 effects
 
 of
 
 Ritalin,
 
 especially
 
 the
 
 Conners
 
 Scale,
 
 pointed
 
  to
 
  attention
 
  as
 
  the
 
  major
 
  symptom
 
  of
 
  hyperactivity.
 
  The
 
  Â?‡™ Dz ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? ‡Ď?‹…‹– ‹•‘”†‡”dz –‡”Â?‹Â?‘Ž‘‰› ™‘—Ž† „‡ used
 
 in
 
 advocating
 
 for
 
 the
 
 inclusion
 
 of
 
 the
 
 diagnosis
 
 as
 
  a
 
  federally
 
  recognized
 
  learning
 
  disability
 
  in
 
  1990.
 
  In
 
 
40 the
meantime,
educators
aligned
themselves
with
the
psychiatric
community
in
representing
a
united
front,
as
ϐ ϐ Ritalin
in
improving
hyperactivity,
and
later
on,
ADD,
was
based
on
teachers’
ratings
on
the
CTRS.
Re-Emergence
of
Child
Guidance
Principles
in
Biological
Psychiatry
ϐ hyperactivity
to
a
diagnosis
that
lay
in
attention
ϐ ǡ policies
of
diagnosis
and
treatment
of
hyperactivity
within
the
schools.
With
the
federal
government’s
approval
of
stimulant
medication
use,
this
became
more
important
as
educators
needed
an
objective
process
of
diagnosis
to
which
to
refer.
This
led
the
School
Review
to
publish
a
special
issue
titled
“The
Hyperactive
Child
and
ǣ ϐ ǡ dz ͳͻͷǡ ϐ school’s
unique
role
in
pediatric
psychopharmacological
research,
thereby
aligning
the
school
with
the
growing
ϐ Ǥ30
However,
though
not
explicitly,
the
issue
also
advocated
for
a
return
to
child
guidance
principles
–
and
therefore
the
maladjustment
framework
–
by
using
the
Conners
Teacher
Rating
Scale
(CTRS)
as
an
intermediary
between
ϐ Ǥ
In
one
article
on
school
policy,
Richard
Johnson
and
James
Kenney
of
the
Minneapolis
Public
Schools
Special
Education
Division
along
with
John
Davis,
President
of
Macalester
College,
argued
that
school
personnel
had
to
educate
themselves
about
changes
in
the
science
of
hyperactive
children
due
to
the
fact
that
Dz ϐ ǡ since
much
of
the
‘data’
utilized
by
physicians
to
diagnose
hyperkinesis
is
represented
by
[their]
verbal
reports… Dz dz ϐ Ǥdz31
In
effect,
teachers
were
called
to
become
amateur
scientists,
more
self-‐conscious
about
their
role
in
developing
a
better
ϐ Ȃ ǡ the
CTRS,
which
was
accepted
as
“hard
science”
by
both
educators
and
psychiatrists
alike.32
Robert
Sprague,
an
educational
psychologist
at
the
University
of
Illinois,
also
supported
the
acceptance
of
the
scale
in
schools,
explaining
that
it
was
“useful
[because]
adequate
normative
data
had
been
developed
for
it.”33
By
using
the
questionnaire
to
diagnose
hyperactivity,
Sprague
wrote
that
the
teacher
could
play
an
important
role
while
not
impeding
on
medical
authority.
He
also
encouraged
teachers
to
depend
and
seek
the
guidance
of
psychiatrists
and
the
school
counselor
to
ensure
that
all
hyperactive
children
were
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
experiencing
positive
changes
through
medication.34
His
ϐ psychiatric
and
educational
community
in
helping
the
hyperactive
child.
Unlike
the
post
World
War
II
period,
in
which
educators
strove
to
separate
themselves
from
ϐ framework
to
describe
maladjusted
children,
they
now
sought
to
build
an
alliance
with
them.
In
addition,
through
ϐ ǡ ϐ ǡ reminder
of
the
days
of
the
child
guidance
clinic
in
the
ͳͻʹͲ ͳͻ͵Ͳ ǡ ϐ framework.
Roberta
Renstrom,
a
special
education
social
worker,
observed
that
concerns
over
stimulant
use
of
medication
stemmed
from
a
perception
that
teachers
Dz ϐ expectations
and
the
behaviors
they
deemed
necessary
for
satisfactory
academic
achievement.”35
Returning
to
the
principles
of
academic
maladjustment
from
the
1950s,
Renstrom
asserted
that
the
diagnosis
of
hyperactivity
Dz ϐ dz ǯ expectations
and
the
behavior
that
the
child
was
actually
exhibiting.
As
such,
she
posited
that
hyperactive
children
should
be
separated
into
self-‐contained
classrooms
and
providing
a
tailored
environment
that
could
meet
their
needs,
a
solution
that
had
been
proposed
by
Roger
Reger,
Director
of
Special
Education
in
Wayne,
Michigan,
a
decade
earlier
before
stimulant
medication
was
a
common
treatment
option.36
Robert
Havighurst,
Professor
of
Education
at
the
University
of
Chicago,
offered
a
method
by
which
to
implement
Renstrom’s
plan.
He
advocated
the
nationwide
implementation
of
a
pre-‐screening
program
for
kindergarten
students,
using
the
Denver
school
system
as
a
model: The
parents
are
asked
to
come
in
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
to
meet
with
the
nurse
practitioner,
and
to
come
in
by
appointment
to
give
an
extended
developmental
history
of
the
child.
The
kindergarten
teacher
is
observing
ϐ ǡ and
so
is
the
learning
disabilities
teacher.
The
Denver
Developmental
Standardized
Test
is
given
to
each
child
by
the
nurse
practitioner
to
evaluate
personal-‐social
development,
language
ǡ ϐ skills…A
small
number
of
the
most
needy
ϐ Ǧ grade
class
at
the
beginning
of
the
next
year.
This
avoids
a
disruption
a
child
might
experience
if
he
were
taken
out
of
the
regular
class
and
placed
in
a
special
class
in
the
middle
of
the
year,
after
he
had
formed
friendships.37
41 The
 
  teacher
 
  took
 
  a
 
  several-Ââ€?month
 
  history
 
  of
 
  the
 
  child
 
  in
 
  the
 
  context
 
  of
 
  the
 
  classroom
 
  setting
 
  by
 
  using
 
  the
 
  CTRS
 
  as
 
  a
 
  guide
 
  and
 
  receiving
 
  help
 
  from
 
  the
 
  school
 
  nurse
 
  and
 
  counselor
 
  as
 
  needed.
 
  Within
 
  the
 
  context
 
  of
 
  biological
 
  psychiatry,
 
  a
 
  life
 
  history
 
  of
 
  the
 
  child
 
  mattered
 
  only
 
  in
 
  relation
 
 to
 
 his
 
 biological
 
 development.
 
 A
 
 child
 
 who
 
 was
 
  deemed
 
  to
 
  be
 
  hyperactive
 
  would
 
  be
 
  placed
 
  into
 
  a
 
  new
 
  classroom
 
  in
 
  the
 
  next
 
  academic
 
  year
 
  to
 
  minimize
 
  the
 
  distraction
 
  and
 
  stresses
 
  a
 
  child
 
  may
 
  feel
 
  in
 
  switching
 
  Â?Â‹Â†ÇŚÂ›Â‡ÂƒÂ”Ç¤ Š‘—‰Š –Š‡ •’‡…‹Ď?‹… ŽƒÂ?‰—ƒ‰‡ ™ƒ• †‹ˆˆ‡”‡Â?–ǥ principles
 
 familiar
 
 since
 
 the
 
 mental
 
 hygiene
 
 era
 
 remained
 
  ‹Â? Â’ÂŽÂƒÂ…Â‡ÇŁ ƒ Š›’‡”ƒ…–‹˜‡ …Š‹Ž† Â?‡‡†‡† ƒ Â?‘†‹Ď?‹…ƒ–‹‘Â? ‹Â? his
 
  environment,
 
  not
 
  necessarily
 
  medication.
 
  Therefore,
 
  through
 
 this
 
 change,
 
 a
 
 child
 
 would
 
 have
 
 a
 
 greater
 
 chance
 
  to
 
  become
 
  non-Ââ€?hyperactive
 
  than
 
  he
 
  would
 
  have
 
  had
 
  in
 
  a
 
  normal
 
 classroom
 
 setting.38
 
 The
 
 return
 
 of
 
 the
 
 emphasis
 
  on
 
  the
 
  classroom
 
  setting
 
  in
 
  a
 
  biological
 
  psychiatric
 
  framework,
 
  due
 
  in
 
  part
 
  to
 
  the
 
  popularization
 
  of
 
  the
 
  CTRS,
 
 became
 
 the
 
 argument
 
 through
 
 which
 
 advocates
 
 of
 
  the
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  pushed
 
  for
 
  federal
 
  legislation
 
  that
 
  guaranteed
 
  educational
 
  opportunities
 
  for
 
  children
 
  who
 
  ™‡”‡ ‹†‡Â?–‹Ď?‹‡† ™‹–Š ƒ Ž‡ƒ”Â?‹Â?‰ ‹Â?’ƒ‹”Â?‡Â?–Ǥ
ÇŽ ‘”Â?ÂƒÂŽÇŻ Žƒ••”‘‘Â? ‡…‘Â?‡• ‡›ǣ Passage
 
 of
 
 the
 
 EAHCA
 
  The
 
  term
 
  “learning
 
  disabilities�
 
  to
 
  describe
 
  a
 
  child’s
 
  maladjustment
 
  was
 
  introduced
 
  at
 
  a
 
  conference
 
  in
 
  1963.
 
  The
 
  establishment
 
  of
 
  national
 
  standards
 
  for
 
  normal
 
  academic
 
  achievement
 
  by
 
  the
 
  National
 
  Defense
 
  Education
 
 Act
 
 (NDEA)
 
 of
 
 1958
 
 pushed
 
 learning
 
 disabilities
 
  legislation
 
 to
 
 the
 
 forefront,
 
 as
 
 educators
 
 placed
 
 the
 
 many
 
  children
 
 who
 
 could
 
 not
 
 meet
 
 these
 
 standards
 
 in
 
 special
 
  classrooms
 
  or
 
  provided
 
  stimulant
 
  medication
 
  in
 
  the
 
  case
 
  of
 
  hyperactivity,
 
  which
 
  did
 
  not
 
  sit
 
  well
 
  with
 
  many
 
  parents.39
 
 This
 
 made
 
 academic
 
 achievement
 
 a
 
 focal
 
 point
 
  for
 
  evaluating
 
  a
 
  child’s
 
  overall
 
  mental
 
  health
 
  and
 
  well-Ââ€? being.
 
  Learning-Ââ€?disabled
 
  children,
 
  on
 
  the
 
  other
 
  hand,
 
  were
 
 relegated
 
 to
 
 self-Ââ€?contained
 
 classrooms
 
 where
 
 social
 
  skills,
 
  rather
 
  than
 
  basic
 
  subjects,
 
  were
 
  taught.40
 
  As
 
  more
 
  learning
 
  disabilities
 
  advocacy
 
  groups
 
  were
 
  founded
 
  throughout
 
  the
 
  nation,
 
  there
 
  was
 
  a
 
  greater
 
  collective
 
  call
 
  for
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  students
 
  to
 
  be
 
  afforded
 
  full
 
  educational
 
  opportunities
 
  in
 
  the
 
  public
 
  school
 
  system.
 
  Because
 
  there
 
  were
 
  no
 
  laws
 
  on
 
  dealing
 
  with
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
 children
 
 in
 
 schools,
 
 individual
 
 parents
 
 appealed
 
  –‘ •…Š‘‘Ž ‘ˆĎ?‹…‹ƒŽ• ‹Â? ƒ……‘Â?Â?‘†ƒ–‹Â?‰ –Š‡‹” …Š‹Ž†”‡Â?ÇĄ which
 
  met
 
  with
 
  mixed
 
  results;
 
  in
 
  fact,
 
  one
 
  million
 
  learning
 
 disabled
 
 children
 
 were
 
 excluded
 
 from
 
 attending
 
  school.41
 
  This
 
  situation
 
  led
 
  the
 
  Pennsylvania
 
  Association
 
  ˆ‘” ‡–ƒ”†‡† Š‹Ž†”‡Â? Č‹ ČŒ –‘ Ď?‹Ž‡ ƒ ˆ‘”Â?ƒŽ …‘Â?’Žƒ‹Â?– against
 
 the
 
 state
 
 of
 
 Pennsylvania
 
 in
 
 1972.
 
 In
 
 Pennsylvania
 
 
Association
 
 for
 
 Retarded
 
 Children
 
 (PARC)
 
 v.
 
 Commonwealth
 
  of
 
  Pennsylvania,
 
  the
 
  PARC
 
  argued
 
  that
 
  the
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  had
 
  a
 
  fundamental
 
  right
 
  to
 
  an
 
  appropriate
 
  ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘Â?ÇĄ ™Š‹…Š ™ƒ• †‡Ď?‹Â?‡† ĥ Ž‡ƒ”Â?‹Â?‰ ƒÂ?† Â?ƒ•–‡”‹Â?‰ basic
 
  academic
 
  subjects
 
  to
 
  the
 
  fullest
 
  extent
 
  possible.
 
  In
 
  the
 
  written
 
  decision
 
  of
 
  the
 
  case,
 
  Judges
 
  Masterson
 
  and
 
  Broderick
 
  wrote:
 
  “Expert
 
  testimony
 
  in
 
  this
 
  action
 
  indicates
 
  that
 
  all
 
  mentally
 
  retarded
 
  persons
 
  are
 
  capable
 
  ‘ˆ „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–‹Â?‰ ˆ”‘Â? ƒ ’”‘‰”ƒÂ? ‘ˆ ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘Â? ƒÂ?† –”ƒ‹Â?‹Â?‰Ǽ Č?ƒÂ?†Č? ƒ”‡ …ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡ ‘ˆ ƒ…Š‹‡˜‹Â?‰ Â•Â‡ÂŽÂˆÇŚÂ•Â—ÂˆĎ?‹…‹‡Â?…›Ǥdz42
 
  The
 
  decision
 
 of
 
 the
 
 case
 
 and
 
 the
 
 subsequent
 
 mandated
 
 policy
 
  changes
 
 requiring
 
 the
 
 school
 
 to
 
 provide
 
 an
 
 appropriate
 
  education
 
  for
 
  all
 
  students,
 
  including
 
  those
 
  that
 
  were
 
  learning
 
 disabled,
 
 established
 
 the
 
 time
 
 spent
 
 in
 
 a
 
 normal
 
  classroom
 
  as
 
  the
 
  standard
 
  by
 
  which
 
  the
 
  severity
 
  of
 
  a
 
  child’s
 
 learning
 
 disability
 
 was
 
 measured.
 
 
 
  Emboldened
 
  by
 
  the
 
  results
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Pennsylvania
 
  case,
 
  thirty-Ââ€?six
 
  other
 
  learning-Ââ€?disabled
 
  advocacy
 
  groups
 
  Ď?‹Ž‡† •‹Â?‹Žƒ” …‘Â?’Žƒ‹Â?–• ƒ‰ƒ‹Â?•– –Š‡‹” ”‡•’‡…–‹˜‡ •–ƒ–‡ governments.43
 
  Advocates
 
  for
 
  the
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  throughout
 
  the
 
  country
 
  fought
 
  to
 
  implement
 
  a
 
  concept
 
  that
 
 they
 
 termed
 
 “mainstreaming,�
 
 in
 
 which
 
 a
 
 child
 
 would
 
  remain
 
  in
 
  a
 
  regular
 
  classroom
 
  as
 
  much
 
  as
 
  physically
 
  and
 
  mentally
 
  possible.
 
  M.
 
  Stephen
 
  Lilly,
 
  the
 
  Director
 
  of
 
  Special
 
 Education
 
 Programs
 
 in
 
 Duluth,
 
 Minnesota,
 
 wrote
 
  that
 
  mainstreaming
 
  would
 
  force
 
  “regular
 
  classroom
 
  teachers
 
  and
 
  special
 
  educators
 
  to
 
  meet
 
  the
 
  needs
 
  of
 
  students.�44
 
  In
 
  this
 
  scheme,
 
  the
 
  regular
 
  teacher
 
  focused
 
  on
 
 the
 
 academics
 
 in
 
 a
 
 normal
 
 classroom
 
 while
 
 the
 
 special
 
  educator
 
  would
 
  help
 
  correct
 
  any
 
  social
 
  behaviors
 
  in
 
  a
 
  separate
 
 setting.
 
 The
 
 balance
 
 between
 
 the
 
 two
 
 classroom
 
  settings
 
 would
 
 depend
 
 wholly
 
 on
 
 the
 
 severity
 
 of
 
 a
 
 child’s
 
  learning
 
 disability.
 
  A
 
 fundamental
 
 assumption
 
 of
 
 the
 
 mainstreaming
 
  theory
 
  was
 
  the
 
  belief
 
  that
 
  a
 
  child
 
  who
 
  remained
 
  in
 
  a
 
  regular
 
  classroom
 
  without
 
  any
 
  trouble
 
  was
 
  considered
 
  normal.
 
  It
 
  was
 
  also
 
  predicated
 
  on
 
  the
 
  belief
 
  that
 
  all
 
  individuals,
 
  including
 
  the
 
  learning
 
  disabled,
 
  should
 
  be
 
  able
 
  to
 
  lead
 
  their
 
  own
 
  lives.45
 
  In
 
  order
 
  to
 
  guarantee
 
  that
 
  this
 
 idealized
 
 principle
 
 came
 
 to
 
 fruition,
 
 advocates
 
 of
 
 the
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  argued
 
  that
 
  these
 
  children
 
  had
 
  to
 
  be
 
  equipped
 
  with
 
  the
 
  necessary
 
  academic
 
  skills
 
  in
 
  order
 
  to
 
  be
 
 on
 
 par
 
 with
 
 their
 
 peers
 
 later
 
 in
 
 life
 
 and
 
 the
 
 amount
 
 of
 
  time
 
 spent
 
 in
 
 a
 
 normal
 
 classroom
 
 would
 
 help
 
 in
 
 realizing
 
  this
 
 goal.
 
 
 
  In
 
  June
 
  1975,
 
  building
 
  on
 
  the
 
  legal
 
  success
 
  of
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  advocacy
 
  groups
 
  throughout
 
  the
 
  country
 
 on
 
 court
 
 cases,
 
 Congress
 
 passed
 
 the
 
 Education
 
 for
 
  All
 
 Handicapped
 
 Children
 
 Act
 
 (EAHCA)
 
 by
 
 a
 
 substantial
 
  margin
 
  in
 
  both
 
  houses.46
 
  The
 
  legislation
 
  provided
 
  a
 
  •’‡…‹Ď?‹… ’‘Ž‹…› –Šƒ– ‡ƒ…Š •…Š‘‘Ž ™ƒ• ”‡“—‹”‡† –‘ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǥ Titled
 
 the
 
 Individualized
 
 Education
 
 Program
 
 (IEP),
 
 based
 
  in
 
  part
 
  on
 
  J.E.
 
  Wallace
 
  Wallin’s
 
  “Baltimore
 
  Plan�
 
  in
 
  the
 
  ͳ͝;Ͳ•ǥ ƒ •’‡…‹Ď?‹… ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘Â? ’ŽƒÂ? ™ƒ• –‘ „‡ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† ˆ‘”
42 each
 
 learning-Ââ€?disabled
 
 child
 
 by
 
 the
 
 school
 
 in
 
 conjunction
 
  objective
 
  standard
 
  for
 
  identifying
 
  hyperactivity,
 
  became
 
  with
 
  parents,
 
  psychiatrists
 
  and
 
  psychologists.
 
 
 
  In
 
  a
 
  tool
 
  that
 
  teachers
 
  used
 
  to
 
  track
 
  the
 
  number
 
  of
 
  eligible
 
  essence,
 
  the
 
  IEP
 
  was
 
  a
 
  treatment
 
  plan
 
  for
 
  the
 
  learning
 
  children.
 
 A
 
 University
 
 of
 
 Florida
 
 research
 
 team
 
 implored
 
  †‹•ƒ„Ž‡† …Š‹Ž†Ǥ ˆ–‡” ƒ ’•›…Š‹ƒ–”‹•– …‘Â?Ď?‹”Â?‡† –Šƒ– ƒ educators
 
  to
 
  use
 
  the
 
  “best
 
  tools
 
  available�
 
  in
 
  identifying
 
  child
 
  was
 
  learning
 
  disabled,
 
  the
 
  adults
 
  in
 
  the
 
  child’s
 
  Č? ’‡…‹Ď?‹… ‡ƒ”Â?‹Â?‰ ‹•ƒ„Ž‡†Č? …Š‹Ž†”‡Â?ÇĄ Ç˛ÂŽÂ‡ÂƒÂ†Â‹Â?‰ –‘ –Š‡ life,
 
  including
 
  the
 
  principal,
 
  teacher,
 
  parents,
 
  school
 
  placement
 
  in
 
  programs
 
  that
 
  prevented
 
  or
 
  reduced
 
  the
 
  counselor
 
  and
 
  psychiatrist,
 
  learning
 
  and
 
  socio-Ââ€?emotional
 
  would
 
  hold
 
  a
 
  meeting
 
  at
 
  the
 
  problems�
 
  of
 
 these
 
 children.48
 
  school
 
  to
 
  determine
 
  the
 
  best
 
  Educators
 
  already
 
  had
 
  the
 
  medical
 
  treatment
 
  options
 
  „‡•– •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… –‘‘Ž ƒ”‘—Â?† Through
 
  the
 
  IEP,
 
  the
 
  school
 
  had
 
  and
 
 set
 
 academic
 
 goals
 
 for
 
 the
 
  –
 
  the
 
  CTRS
 
  –
 
  and
 
  used
 
  it
 
  to
 
  student.
 
  Every
 
  year
 
  after,
 
  the
 
  once
 
  again
 
  become
 
  a
 
  recognized
 
  recognize
 
  learning-Ââ€?disabled
 
  teacher
 
  and
 
  principal
 
  were
 
  center
 
 for
 
 diagnosis
 
 and
 
 treatment,
 
  students.
 
 With
 
 this
 
 instrument
 
  required
 
 to
 
 reevaluate
 
 the
 
 child
 
  as
 
 the
 
 law
 
 required
 
 educators
 
 –
 
 not
 
  in
 
  hand,
 
  hyperactivity
 
  became
 
  to
 
  see
 
  if
 
  the
 
  IEP
 
  standards
 
  for
 
  the
 
  major
 
  objective
 
  sign
 
  for
 
  that
 
  year
 
  had
 
  been
 
  met.
 
  After
 
  the
 
  psychiatrist
 
  or
 
  the
 
  parent
 
  –
 
  to
 
  teachers
 
 in
 
 identifying
 
 possibly
 
  determining
 
  this,
 
  the
 
  adults
 
  determine
 
  whether
 
  targets
 
  had
 
  learning
 
 disabled
 
 children. would
 
  come
 
  together
 
  once
 
 
 
  Because
 
  the
 
  IEP
 
  been
 
 met. again
 
  to
 
  set
 
  new
 
  treatment
 
  framework
 
  included
 
  the
 
  options
 
  and
 
  academic
 
  goals
 
  amelioration
 
  of
 
  hyperactivity
 
  in
 
  light
 
  of
 
  the
 
  results
 
  of
 
  the
 
  as
 
  a
 
  yearly
 
  goal,
 
  teachers
 
  past
 
  year.
 
  Through
 
  the
 
  IEP,
 
  the
 
  continued
 
  to
 
  use
 
  stimulant
 
  school
 
  had
 
  once
 
  again
 
  become
 
  a
 
  recognized
 
  center
 
  for
 
  medication
 
  for
 
  many
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  children.
 
  This
 
  diagnosis
 
 and
 
 treatment,
 
 as
 
 the
 
 law
 
 required
 
 educators
 
 –
 
  was
 
  also
 
  due
 
  in
 
  part
 
  to
 
  the
 
  EAHCA
 
  requirement
 
  that
 
  not
 
 the
 
 psychiatrist
 
 or
 
 the
 
 parent
 
 –
 
 to
 
 determine
 
 whether
 
  all
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  students
 
  be
 
  mainstreamed
 
  into
 
  targets
 
 had
 
 been
 
 met. regular
 
 classrooms
 
 to
 
 the
 
 fullest
 
 extent
 
 possible,
 
 which
 
  posed
 
  problems
 
  for
 
  many
 
  teachers.
 
  As
 
  Nicholas
 
  Vacc
 
  ƒÂ?…› ‹”•–ǥ –™‘ ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘Â?ƒŽ ‘ˆĎ?‹…‹ƒŽ• ‹Â? –Š‡ ‡™ Hyperactivity
 
 as
 
 an
 
 Indicator,
 
 Drugs
 
  ƒ�† York
 
  State
 
  Department
 
  of
 
  Education,
 
  asserted
 
  in
 
  their
 
  survey
 
  of
 
  teachers,
 
  most
 
  believed
 
  that
 
  they
 
  “would
 
  have
 
  as
 
 the
 
 Treatment detrimental
 
 effects
 
 on
 
 the
 
 nonhandicapped
 
 children�
 
 in
 
 a
 
  49
 
  With
 
 the
 
 passage
 
 of
 
 EAHCA
 
 in
 
 1975,
 
 hyperactivity,
 
  classroom.
 
  Because
 
  of
 
  the
 
  requirement
 
  to
 
  mainstream,
 
  once
 
  thought
 
  to
 
  be
 
  a
 
  discrete
 
  learning
 
  disorder,
 
  many
 
 teachers
 
 saw
 
 medication
 
 as
 
 the
 
 best
 
 way
 
 to
 
 manage
 
  became
 
  a
 
  symptom
 
  of
 
  other
 
  learning
 
  disabilities,
 
  as
 
  classrooms
 
  while
 
  meeting
 
  federal
 
  requirements
 
  for
 
  50 hyperactivity
 
  was
 
  not
 
  included
 
  in
 
  the
 
  eligible
 
  list
 
  of
 
  learning
 
 disabled
 
 students.
 
 In
 
 1975,
 
 when
 
 the
 
 EAHCA
 
  accepted
 
 impairments
 
 at
 
 the
 
 time.
 
 However,
 
 the
 
 research
 
  ™ƒ• Ď?‹”•– ‹Â?’Ž‡Â?‡Â?–‡†ǥ ƒ’’”‘š‹Â?ƒ–‡Ž› ͳ͡ͲǥͲͲͲ …Š‹Ž†”‡Â? ƒÂ?† †‡„ƒ–‡• •—””‘—Â?†‹Â?‰ –Š‡ †‡Ď?‹Â?‹–‹‘Â?ÇĄ †‹ƒ‰Â?‘•‹• ƒÂ?† were
 
  taking
 
  Ritalin.
 
  By
 
  1988,
 
  the
 
  number
 
  of
 
  children
 
  on
 
  treatment
 
 of
 
 hyperactivity
 
 played
 
 a
 
 key
 
 part
 
 in
 
 identifying
 
  Ritalin
 
  had
 
  increased
 
  over
 
  500
 
  percent
 
  to
 
  one
 
  million
 
  51 students
 
  who
 
  would
 
  be
 
  eligible
 
  for
 
  services
 
  under
 
  the
 
  children.
 
  With
 
  this
 
  unprecedented
 
  growth
 
  in
 
  the
 
  legislation.
 
  For
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  students,
 
  as
 
  Floyd
 
  number
 
 of
 
 children
 
 taking
 
 Ritalin,
 
 originally
 
 intended
 
 for
 
  Hudson
 
  and
 
  Steve
 
  Graham
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Learning
 
  Disabilities
 
  hyperactivity,
 
  there
 
  would
 
  be
 
  a
 
  new
 
  push
 
  to
 
  recognize
 
  ˆĎ?‹…‡ ‹Â? –Š‡ ‡’ƒ”–Â?‡Â?– ‘ˆ ’‡…‹ƒŽ †—…ƒ–‹‘Â? ™”‘–‡ǥ –Š‡ –Š‡ Â?‡™ ‘ˆĎ?‹…‹ƒŽ Â?ƒÂ?‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ †‹ƒ‰Â?‘•‹•ǥ Dz ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? ‡Ď?‹…‹– IEP
 
 team
 
 at
 
 a
 
 school
 
 had
 
 to
 
 see
 
 a
 
 reduction
 
 in
 
 hyperactivity
 
  ‹•‘”†‡”ǥdz ĥ ƒ •’‡…‹Ď?‹… Ž‡ƒ”Â?‹Â?‰ †‹•ƒ„‹Ž‹–› ‹Â? –Š‡ ”‡˜‹•‹‘Â? to
 
  account
 
  for
 
  an
 
  improvement
 
  of
 
  “behavioral
 
  skills.�47
 
  of
 
 the
 
 EAHCA
 
 in
 
 the
 
 last
 
 decade
 
 of
 
 the
 
 twentieth
 
 century. Because
 
  hyperactivity
 
  was
 
  accepted
 
  as
 
  a
 
  symptomatic
 
  expression
 
 of
 
 many
 
 learning
 
 disabilities,
 
 educators
 
 saw
 
  ADD
 
 Becomes
 
 a
 
 Learning
 
 Disability:
 
  it
 
 as
 
 an
 
 indicator
 
 of
 
 whether
 
 a
 
 student
 
 was
 
 meeting
 
 his
 
  Return
 
 to
 
 Charles
 
 Bradley yearly
 
 IEP
 
 target
 
 goals.
 
  In
 
  addition
 
  to
 
  this
 
  general
 
  perception
 
  shift
 
  In
 
  1987,
 
  a
 
  national
 
  organization,
 
  Children
 
  and
 
  amongst
 
  the
 
  public
 
  on
 
  hyperactivity,
 
  many
 
  schools
 
 
 
  implemented
 
 pre-Ââ€?screening
 
 programs
 
 after
 
 the
 
 passage
 
  †—Ž–• ™‹–Š ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? ‡Ď?‹…‹– ‹•‘”†‡” Č‹ ČŒ ™ƒ• of
 
 the
 
 EAHCA,
 
 as
 
 the
 
 law
 
 forbade
 
 schools
 
 from
 
 denying
 
 an
 
  founded
 
  to
 
  support
 
  people
 
  with
 
  ADD.
 
  The
 
  organization
 
  education
 
  to
 
  learning
 
  disabled
 
  children
 
  due
 
  to
 
  cost.
 
  The
 
  „‡‰ƒÂ? –‘ Ž‘„„› ‘Â?‰”‡•• –‘ ‹Â?…Ž—†‡ ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? ‡Ď?‹…‹– Conners
 
 Teacher
 
 Rating
 
 Scale
 
 (CTRS),
 
 as
 
 an
 
 accepted
 
 and
 
  Disorder
 
  (ADD)
 
  in
 
  the
 
  list
 
  of
 
  learning
 
  disabilities
 
  in
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
43 the
Education
for
All
Handicapped
Children
Act,
which
Lauro
Caravazos,
a
trained
physiologist
and
former
dean
Congress
later
changed
to
the
Individuals
with
Disabilities
of
the
Tufts
University
School
of
Medicine,
to
solicit
Education
Act.
In
supporting
their
position,
CHADD
turned
“public
comments
on
the
appropriate
components
of
ϐ ϐ Ǯ ϐ ǯ Charles
Bradley
in
the
1930s.
Charles
Bradley
was
one
of
dz ϐ ϐ –
over
2,000
comments
poured
in
from
educators
and
ǡ ϐ psychiatrists.58
In
the
same
year,
the
National
Institute
stimulants
became
more
subdued
and
took
an
active
of
Mental
Health
(NIMH)
funded
a
two-‐year
study,
which
interest
in
their
schoolwork.52
In
addition
to
testing
utilized
Positron
Emission
Tomography
(PET)
to
examine
stimulant
drugs,
he
and
his
research
team
based
their
the
brains
of
adults
who
were
diagnosed
with
ADD
conclusions
in
part
on
electroencephalograms
(EEG)
to
as
children.59
The
study
was
highly
publicized
and
its
mark
changes
before
and
after
drug
treatment.53
Bradley
results
were
anxiously
anticipated
due
to
the
controversy
ϐ ǡ ϐ ADD,
in
a
neuroanatomical
fashion
by
matching
different
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education
Act
(IDEA).60
brain
patterns
to
a
clinical
counterpart.54
Though
Bradley
When
the
results
were
published
in
The
New
England
ϐ Journal
of
Medicine,
the
study
in
his
day,
in
the
1980s,
the
EEG
became
key
evidence
used
to
became
a
supposedly
objective
support
the
biological
notion
tool
to
justify
the
diagnosis
and
of
ADD,
stating
that
ADD
adults
ϐ The
EEG
set
the
foundation
for
had
different
brain
images
disorder.55 moving
beyond
the
realm
of
than
those
who
did
not
have
One
of
the
major
“Glucose
metabolism,
teacher
ratings
and
standardized
ADD:
ϐ both
global
and
regional,
was
links
between
the
EEG
and
exams
tracking
the
etiology
of
ADD
reduced
in
adults
who
had
been
the
ADD
diagnosis
and
by
placing
the
diagnosis
within
hyperactive
since
childhood.
treatment
was
Joel
Lubar,
a
a
wholly
biological
framework.
The
largest
reductions
were
Professor
of
Psychology
at
in
the
premotor
cortex
and
Bolstered
by
the
role
of
EEGs
the
University
of
Tennessee
at
the
superior
prefrontal
cortex
Knoxville.
In
the
late
1970s,
in
diagnosing
different
brain
–
areas
earlier
shown
to
be
he
tested
the
viability
of
the
disorders,
including
ADD,
new
involved
in
the
control
of
EEG
as
a
method
to
measure
brain
scan
technologies
were
used
attention
and
motor
activity.”61 psychophysiological
responses
The
timing
of
the
study
in
hyperkinetic
children
and
ϔ ǡ coincided
with
the
concluding
found
through
a
double-‐ MRI
(Magnetic
Resonance
Imaging)
debates
surrounding
the
blind
test
that
there
were
and
SPECT
(Single
Photon
Emission
revision
of
the
IDEA
in
1990,
differences
between
them
and
and
CHADD
used
Zametkin’s
Computed
Tomography). normal
children.56
The
EEG
study
as
its
main
evidentiary
set
the
foundation
for
moving
point.62
Congress
was
beyond
the
realm
of
teacher
ǡ ϐ ratings
and
standardized
exams
tracking
the
etiology
of
became
a
recognized
learning
disability
under
the
ADD
by
placing
the
diagnosis
within
a
wholly
biological
Individuals
with
Disabilities
Education
Act.
However,
framework.
Bolstered
by
the
role
of
EEGs
in
diagnosing
educators
soon
became
confused
about
what
separated
different
brain
disorders,
including
ADD,
new
brain
scan
ADD
from
other
learning
disabilities.
This
confusion
ϐ ǡ led
the
U.S.
Department
of
Education
to
release
a
the
MRI
(Magnetic
Resonance
Imaging)
and
SPECT
ϐ Ǥ (Single
Photon
Emission
Computed
Tomography).57
With
Emphasizing
the
classroom
setting,
an
ADD
child
would
ϐ present
symptoms,
such
as
hyperactivity,
that
prevented
ϐ ǡ him
from
learning
in
a
normal
classroom.63
Though
much
ϐ ϐ ADD
children
and
non-‐ADD
children
became
key
issues
maladjustment
to
the
formalization
of
ADD
as
a
learning
in
including
ADD
in
the
federal
legislation
revision.
disability,
one
theme
remained
the
same:
the
ability
to
When
the
bill
to
include
ADD
as
a
learning
learn
in
a
classroom
was
a
measure
of
mental
health.
ϐ ͳͻͺͻǡ
The
treatment
for
this
condition,
of
course,
hesitated.
It
authorized
the
Secretary
of
Education,
had
changed.
Even
with
the
backlash
against
stimulant
44 medication
 
  in
 
  the
 
  1970s,
 
  the
 
  American
 
  public
 
  came
 
  to
 
  accept
 
  Ritalin
 
  as
 
  an
 
  acceptable
 
  standard
 
  treatment
 
  ˆ‘” –Š‡•‡ …Š‹Ž†”‡Â?Ǥ Š‹• ™ƒ• Œ—•–‹Ď?‹‡† ‹Â? –Š‡ Â?ƒÂ?‡ ‘ˆ the
 
 child’s
 
 well-Ââ€?being,
 
 of
 
 course
 
 –
 
 but
 
 the
 
 drugs
 
 served
 
  teachers
 
  and
 
  parents
 
  as
 
  well.
 
  With
 
  the
 
  mainstreaming
 
  concept
 
 required
 
 by
 
 the
 
 EAHCA,
 
 stimulant
 
 drugs
 
 allowed
 
  educators
 
  and
 
  parents
 
  to
 
  avoid
 
  the
 
  paperwork
 
  and
 
  extensive
 
  discussions
 
  of
 
  an
 
  Individualized
 
  Education
 
  Program
 
 (IEP)
 
 and
 
 provided
 
 a
 
 reliable
 
 method
 
 by
 
 which
 
  a
 
  child
 
  could
 
  learn
 
  in
 
  a
 
  normal
 
  classroom
 
  with
 
  minimal
 
  disruption
 
  to
 
  the
 
  overarching
 
  setting.64
 
  This
 
  push
 
  to
 
  reconceptualize
 
  hyperactivity
 
  as
 
  a
 
  biological
 
  condition
 
  called
 
 ADD
 
 created
 
 a
 
 paradoxical
 
 effect,
 
 in
 
 which
 
 the
 
 basic
 
  ’”‹Â?…‹’Ž‡• ‘ˆ ƒ…ƒ†‡Â?‹… Â?ƒŽƒ†Œ—•–Â?‡Â?– ”‡Â?ƒ‹Â?‡† Ď?‹”Â? ‹Â? –Š‡ •…Š‘‘ŽǤ Â? –Š‡ ‘Â?‡ ŠƒÂ?†ǥ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š ‰”ƒ˜‹–ƒ–‡† –‘™ƒ”† ƒ „”ƒ‹Â?ÇŚÂ„ÂƒÂ•Â‡Â† †‡Ď?‹Â?‹–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ …‘Â?†‹–‹‘Â?Ǣ ‘Â? –Š‡ other
 
 hand,
 
 the
 
 symptoms
 
 of
 
 ADD
 
 pre-Ââ€?dated
 
 the
 
 disorder.
 
  Though
 
  the
 
  child’s
 
  environment
 
  did
 
  not
 
  matter
 
  as
 
  much
 
  as
 
  it
 
  did
 
  before,
 
  the
 
  child
 
  who
 
  had
 
  ADD
 
  remained,
 
  at
 
  the
 
  core,
 
 academically
 
 maladjusted,
 
 a
 
 theme
 
 that
 
 continues
 
  to
 
 this
 
 very
 
 day.
 
 Endnotes 1
 
  Walker
 
 Percy,
 
 The
 
 Message
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Bottle:
 
 How
 
 Queer
 
 Man
 
 Is,
 
  How
 
 Queer
 
 Language
 
 Is,
 
 and
 
 What
 
 One
 
 Has
 
 to
 
 do
 
 with
 
 the
 
 Other
 
  (New
 
 York:
 
 Farrar,
 
 Straus
 
 and
 
 Giroux,
 
 1977),
 
 119-Ââ€?120.
 
  2
 
 
 
 DEA
 
 Congressional
 
 Testimony:
 
 Terrance
 
 Woodworth,
 
  ‡’—–› ‹”‡…–‘”ǥ ˆĎ?‹…‡ ‘ˆ ‹˜‡”•‹‘Â? ‘Â?–”‘Žǥ ”—‰ Â?ˆ‘”…‡Â?‡Â?– Administration.
 
 Before
 
 the
 
 Committee
 
 on
 
 Education
 
 and
 
 the
 
  Workforce:
 
 Subcommittee
 
 on
 
 Early
 
 Childhood,
 
 Youth
 
 and
 
 Families,
 
  May
 
 16,
 
 2000. 3
 
 
 
 ‘Cosmetic
 
 psychopharmacology’
 
 was
 
 a
 
 term
 
 used
 
 by
 
 Peter
 
  Kramer
 
 in
 
 his
 
 best-Ââ€?selling
 
 book,
 
 Listening
 
 to
 
 Prozac,
 
 in
 
 describing
 
  people
 
 who
 
 wanted
 
 to
 
 take
 
 anti-Ââ€?depression
 
 medications
 
 just
 
 to
 
 feel
 
  good
 
 about
 
 themselves
 
 and
 
 be
 
 more
 
 productive.
 
 See
 
 Peter
 
 Kramer,
 
  Listening
 
 to
 
 Prozac
 
 (New
 
 York:
 
 Penguin,
 
 1993). 4
 
 
 
 See
 
 Appendix,
 
 Figure
 
 1. 5
 
 
 
 For
 
 an
 
 example,
 
 see
 
 Gina
 
 Bari
 
 Kolata,
 
 “Childhood
 
 Hyperactivity:
 
  A
 
 New
 
 Look
 
 at
 
 Treatments
 
 and
 
 Causes,�
 
 Science,
 
 New
 
 Series
 
 199,
 
 No.
 
  4328
 
 (February
 
 3,
 
 1978):
 
 515-Ââ€?517. 6
 
 
 
 Edward
 
 Hallowell
 
 and
 
 John
 
 Ratey,
 
 Driven
 
 to
 
 Distraction
 
 (New
 
  York:
 
 Touchstone,
 
 1995). 7
 
 
 
 Edward
 
 Hallowell
 
 and
 
 John
 
 Ratey,
 
 Delivered
 
 from
 
 Distraction
 
  (New
 
 York:
 
 Touchstone,
 
 2005),
 
 39. 8
 
 
 
 Ibid.,
 
 39. 9
 
 
 
 Ibid.,
 
 291. 10
 
  ADD
 
 Forums,
 
 “Adult
 
 ADHD
 
 Forum�;
 
 available
 
 from
 
 http://www. addforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=70;
 
 Internet;
 
 accessed
 
  1
 
 March
 
 2009. 11
 
 
 
 Susan
 
 Saulny,
 
 “Students
 
 Stand
 
 When
 
 Called
 
 Upon,
 
 and
 
 When
 
  Not,�
 
 The
 
 New
 
 York
 
 Times,
 
 25
 
 February
 
 2009. 12
 
 
 
 R.
 
 Maynard,
 
 “Omaha
 
 Pupils
 
 Given
 
 Behavior
 
 Drugs,�
 
 The
 
  Washington
 
 Post,
 
 29
 
 June
 
 1970.
 
 Later
 
 on,
 
 it
 
 was
 
 found
 
 that
 
 the
 
  article
 
 contained
 
 inaccuracies;
 
 Ritalin
 
 was
 
 given
 
 to
 
 ten
 
 percent
 
  of
 
 learning
 
 disabled
 
 children
 
 in
 
 the
 
 school
 
 district.
 
 However,
 
 the
 
  †ƒÂ?ƒ‰‡ ™ƒ• †‘Â?‡Ǣ Â?ƒÂ?› ’ƒ”‡Â?–• ƒÂ?† –Š‡ Â?‡†‹ƒ ™‡”‡ Š‘””‹Ď?‹‡† ƒ– –Š‡ thought
 
 of
 
 having
 
 their
 
 children
 
 medicated. 13
 
 
 
 See
 
 R.D.
 
 Laing,
 
 The
 
 Divided
 
 Self:
 
 An
 
 Existential
 
 Study
 
 in
 
 Sanity
 
  and
 
 Madness
 
 (Harmondsworth:
 
 Penguin,
 
 1960)
 
 and
 
 Thomas
 
 Szasz,
 
  The
 
 Myth
 
 of
 
 Mental
 
 Illness:
 
 Foundations
 
 of
 
 a
 
 Theory
 
 of
 
 Personal
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
Conduct
 
 (New
 
 York:
 
 Hoeber-Ââ€?Harper,
 
 1961).
 
 For
 
 more
 
 on
 
 the
 
 anti-Ââ€? psychiatry
 
 movement,
 
 see
 
 Nick
 
 Crossley,
 
 Contesting
 
 Psychiatry:
 
  Social
 
 Movements
 
 in
 
 Mental
 
 Health
 
 (London:
 
 Routledge,
 
 2006)
 
 and
 
  Zbigniew
 
 Kotowicz,
 
 R.D.
 
 Laing
 
 and
 
 the
 
 Paths
 
 of
 
 Anti-Ââ€?Psychiatry
 
 (New
 
  York:
 
 Routledge,
 
 1997).
 
  14
 
 
 
 Later
 
 on,
 
 it
 
 was
 
 found
 
 that
 
 the
 
 article
 
 contained
 
 inaccuracies.
 
  However,
 
 the
 
 damage
 
 was
 
 done;
 
 many
 
 parents
 
 and
 
 the
 
 media
 
 were
 
  Š‘””‹Ď?‹‡† ƒ– –Š‡ –Š‘—‰Š– ‘ˆ Šƒ˜‹Â?‰ –Š‡‹” …Š‹Ž†”‡Â? Â?‡†‹…ƒ–‡†Ǥ ‡‡ Ǥ Ladd,
 
 “Pills
 
 for
 
 Classroom
 
 Peace?�
 
 Saturday
 
 Review
 
 (21
 
 November
 
  1970):
 
 66-Ââ€?8,
 
 81-Ââ€?3,
 
 N.
 
 Hentoff,
 
 “The
 
 Drugged
 
 Classroom,�
 
 Evergreen
 
  Review
 
 (December
 
 1970):
 
 31-Ââ€?3
 
 and
 
 N.
 
 Hentoff,
 
 “Drug-Ââ€?Pushing
 
 in
 
  Schools,�
 
 The
 
 Village
 
 Voice
 
 (25
 
 May
 
 1972):
 
 20-Ââ€?1. 15
 
 
 
 U.S.
 
 Department
 
 of
 
 Commerce/Bureau
 
 of
 
 the
 
 Census,
 
 “Current
 
  Population
 
 Reports:
 
 Population
 
 Characteristics,�
 
 October
 
 1970
 
  Census
 
 Survey
 
 (Washington,
 
 DC:
 
 U.S.
 
 Department
 
 of
 
 Commerce,
 
  1970). 16
 
 
 
 C.E.
 
 Gallagher,
 
 “Federal
 
 Involvement
 
 in
 
 the
 
 Use
 
 of
 
 Behavior
 
  ‘†‹Ď?‹…ƒ–‹‘Â? ”—‰• ‘Â? ”ƒÂ?Â?ƒ” …Š‘‘Ž Š‹Ž†”‡Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‹‰Š– to
 
 Privacy
 
 Inquiry,�
 
 Committee
 
 on
 
 Governmental
 
 Operations.
 
  House
 
 of
 
 Representatives
 
 91st
 
 Congress,
 
 2nd
 
 Session,
 
 No.
 
 52-Ââ€? ʹ͸ͺ Č‹ ƒ•Š‹Â?‰–‘Â?ÇĄ ÇŁ ‘˜‡”Â?Â?‡Â?– ”‹Â?–‹Â?‰ ˆĎ?‹…‡ǥ ÍłÍťÍšÍ˛ČŒ ƒÂ?† ƒ™”‡Â?…‡ Ǥ ‹ŽŽ‡”ǥ Dz Š‡ —Â? ‘Â? ‹–ƒŽ‹Â?ÇŁ ––‡Â?–‹‘Â? ‡Ď?‹…‹– ‹•‘”†‡” and
 
 Stimulant
 
 Treatment
 
 in
 
 the
 
 1990s,�
 
 The
 
 Hastings
 
 Center
 
 Report
 
  26,
 
 No.
 
 2
 
 (March/April
 
 1996),
 
 12-Ââ€?18.
 
 Some
 
 historians
 
 of
 
 education
 
  argue
 
 that
 
 an
 
 increase
 
 in
 
 students
 
 during
 
 the
 
 baby
 
 boomer
 
  ‰‡Â?‡”ƒ–‹‘Â? Ž‡† –‘ ƒÂ? ‹Â?…”‡ƒ•‡† †‡’‡Â?†‡Â?…› ‘Â? ‡ˆĎ?‹…‹‡Â?…› ƒÂ?† Dz“—‹…Â? Ď?‹š‡•dz ‘ˆ ’”‘„Ž‡Â?•Ǥ ‘” Â?‘”‡ ‹Â?ˆ‘”Â?ƒ–‹‘Â?ÇĄ •‡‡ ‹ƒÂ?‡ ÂƒÂ˜Â‹Â–Â…ÂŠÇĄ Š‡ Troubled
 
 Crusade:
 
 American
 
 Education,
 
 1945-Ââ€?1980
 
 (New
 
 York:
 
  Basic
 
 Books,
 
 1983)
 
 and
 
 Paul
 
 Fass,
 
 Children
 
 of
 
 a
 
 New
 
 World:
 
 Society,
 
  Culture
 
 and
 
 Globalization
 
 (New
 
 York:
 
 New
 
 York
 
 University
 
 Press,
 
  2007).
 
 For
 
 a
 
 sociological
 
 viewpoint
 
 on
 
 the
 
 baby
 
 boomer
 
 generation,
 
  •‡‡ †™ƒ”† Š‡—Â?‰ǥ ƒ„› ‘‘Â?‡”•ǥ ‡Â?‡”ƒ–‹‘Â? ƒÂ?† ‘…‹ƒŽ ›…Ž‡•ǥ Volume
 
 I:
 
 North
 
 American
 
 Long-Ââ€?Waves
 
 (Canada:
 
 Long
 
 Wave
 
 Press,
 
  2007). 17
 
 
 
 “Special
 
 Supplement:
 
 MBD,
 
 Drug
 
 Research
 
 and
 
 the
 
 Schools,�
 
  The
 
 Hastings
 
 Center
 
 Report,
 
 6,
 
 No.
 
 3
 
 (June
 
 1976):
 
 14.
 
 I
 
 highly
 
  recommend
 
 taking
 
 a
 
 look
 
 at
 
 it
 
 for
 
 the
 
 wealth
 
 of
 
 information
 
 it
 
  contains
 
 regarding
 
 the
 
 different
 
 schools
 
 of
 
 thought
 
 regarding
 
 a
 
  variety
 
 of
 
 issues
 
 surrounding
 
 the
 
 use
 
 of
 
 drugs
 
 on
 
 children. 18
 
 
 
 Peter
 
 Schrag
 
 and
 
 Diane
 
 Divosky,
 
 The
 
 Myth
 
 of
 
 the
 
 Hyperactive
 
  Child
 
 (New
 
 York:
 
 Pantheon
 
 Books,
 
 1975). 19
 
 
 
 See
 
 Judith
 
 P.
 
 Swazey,
 
 “Review:
 
 Myths,
 
 Muckraking
 
 and
 
  Hyperactive
 
 Children,�
 
 The
 
 Hastings
 
 Center
 
 Report
 
 6,
 
 No.
 
 2
 
 (April
 
  1976),
 
 16-Ââ€?18.
 
 Even
 
 a
 
 number
 
 of
 
 historians
 
 and
 
 sociologists
 
 joined
 
 in
 
  the
 
 criticism
 
 of
 
 the
 
 book
 
 as
 
 well.
 
 Swazey,
 
 a
 
 researcher
 
 on
 
 medicine,
 
  ethics
 
 and
 
 society,
 
 wrote:
 
 “Without
 
 going
 
 to
 
 the
 
 extremes
 
 of
 
  casting
 
 heroes
 
 and
 
 villains
 
 clashing
 
 in
 
 a
 
 gigantic
 
 behavior
 
 control
 
  conspiracy‌
 
 they
 
 could
 
 have
 
 still
 
 written
 
 a
 
 probing,
 
 provocative
 
  book.â€? ʹͲ ‡ˆˆ”› ‡ŽŽ‡” ƒÂ?† ‘ŠÂ? Â‹Â”ÂƒÂŽÂ›ÇĄ ”Ǥǥ Dz ‡Šƒ˜‹‘” ‘†‹Ď?‹…ƒ–‹‘Â?ÇŁ Classroom
 
 Clockwork
 
 Orange?,�
 
 The
 
 Elementary
 
 School
 
 Journal
 
 74,
 
  No.
 
 4
 
 (January
 
 1974),
 
 196-Ââ€?202.
 
 Many
 
 interesting
 
 themes
 
 are
 
 present
 
  in
 
 this
 
 phrase,
 
 especially
 
 the
 
 role
 
 of
 
 pharmaceuticals
 
 as
 
 technology
 
  and
 
 the
 
 moral
 
 and
 
 ethical
 
 questions
 
 that
 
 this
 
 raises.
 
 See
 
 Michael
 
  E.
 
 Gorman,
 
 James
 
 F.
 
 Groves
 
 and
 
 Jeff
 
 Strager,
 
 “Social
 
 Dimensions
 
 of
 
  Nanotechnology
 
 as
 
 a
 
 Trading
 
 Zone:
 
 Results
 
 from
 
 a
 
 Pilot
 
 Project,�
 
  Discovering
 
 the
 
 Nanoscale,
 
 D.
 
 Baird,
 
 A.
 
 Nordmann
 
 and
 
 J.
 
 Schummer,
 
  editors
 
 (Amsterdam:
 
 IOS
 
 Press,
 
 2004)
 
 and
 
 Rick
 
 Mayes,
 
 Medicating
 
  Children:
 
 ADHD
 
 and
 
 Pediatric
 
 Mental
 
 Health
 
 (Cambridge:
 
 Harvard
 
  University
 
 Press,
 
 2009).
 
 On
 
 “trading
 
 zones,�
 
 see
 
 Peter
 
 Galison,
 
 Image
 
  and
 
 Logic:
 
 A
 
 Material
 
 Culture
 
 of
 
 Microphysics
 
 (Chicago:
 
 University
 
 of
 
  Chicago
 
 Press,
 
 1997). 21
 
 
 
 Virginia
 
 Douglas,
 
 “Stop,
 
 Look
 
 and
 
 Listen:
 
 The
 
 Problem
 
 of
 
  Sustained
 
 Attention
 
 and
 
 Impulse
 
 Control
 
 in
 
 Hyperactive
 
 and
 
 Normal
 
  Children,�
 
 Canadian
 
 Journal
 
 of
 
 Behavioral
 
 Science
 
 4
 
 (1972),
 
 259-Ââ€?282. 22
 
 
 
 Ibid. 23
 
 
 
 Donald
 
 Sykes,
 
 Virginia
 
 Douglas
 
 and
 
 Gert
 
 Morgenstern,
 
 “The
 
 
45 Effect
of
Methylphenidate
(Ritalin)
on
Sustained
Attention
in
Hyperactive
Children,”
Psychopharmacology
25,
No.
3
(1972),
262-‐ 274. 24
Virginia
Douglas,
“Stop,
Look
and
Listen:
The
Problem
of
Sustained
Attention
and
Impulse
Control
in
Hyperactive
and
Normal
Children,”
Canadian
Journal
of
Behavioral
Science
4
(1972),
259-‐ 282.Minimal
Brain
Dysfunction
(MBD)
as
a
term
fell
out
of
favor
overtime.
Beginning
with
Douglas’
study,
more
and
more
studies
concluded
that
evidence
of
brain
damage
did
not
exist
in
hyperactive
children.
In
fact,
a
1976
critique
of
MBD
stated
that
there
was
no
quantitative
evidence
in
favor
of
MBD
in
hyperactive
children.
Dz ǣ ϐ –
Historical
Development
and
Overview,”
Journal
of
Attention
Disorders
3,
No.
173
(2000)
and
Lawrence
Diller,
Running
on
Ritalin
(New
York:
Bantam
Books,
1999). 25
C.
Keith
Conners,
et
al.,
“Revision
and
Restandardization
of
the
Conners
Teacher
Rating
Scale
(CTRS-‐R):
Factor
Structure,
Reliability
and
Criterion
Validity,”
Journal
of
Abnormal
Child
Psychology
26
(1998).
See
also
C.
Keith
Conners,
et
al.,
“Effects
of
Methylphenidate
(Ritalin)
on
Paired-‐Associated
Learning
and
Porteus
Maze
Performance
in
Emotionally
Disturbed
Children,”
Journal
of
Consulting
Psychology
28,
No.
1
(February
1964),
14-‐22.
As
a
reminder,
‘emotionally
disturbed’
was
a
pre-‐cursor
term
to
hyperactivity.
Numerous
articles
in
The
Elementary
Journal
point
to
the
teacher
as
the
objective
adult
that
did
not
have
any
personal
stake
in
the
diagnostic
outcome
of
the
child,
a
theme
that
continued
from
the
days
of
the
child
guidance
clinics. 26
J.
Thomas
Dalby,
et
al.,
“Hyperactive
Children’s
Underuse
of
Learning
Time:
Correction
by
Stimulant
Treatment,”
Child
Development
48,
No.
4
(December
1977),
1448-‐1453.
John
P.
Poggio,
Neil
J.
Salkind,
“A
Review
and
Appraisal
of
Instruments
Assessing
Hyperactivity
in
Children,”
Learning
Disability
Quarterly
2,
No.
1
(Winter
1979),
9-‐22.
Jonathan
Sandoval,
“The
Measurement
of
the
Hyperactive
Syndrome
in
Children,”
Review
of
Educational
Research
47,
No.
2
(Spring
1997):
293-‐318.,
and
Oliver
J.
David,
“Association
between
Lower
Level
Lead
Concentrations
and
Hyperactivity
in
Children,”
Environmental
Health
Perspectives
7
(May
1974),
17-‐25.
These
studies
are
just
a
sampling
of
many
experiments
that
used
the
Conner’s
Scale
as
an
objective
scale
of
measurement
in
marking
changes
in
hyperactivity.
Poggio’s
article
states
that
the
Conner’s
Scale
was
the
most
valuable
out
of
all
the
tests
that
were
available
at
the
time
due
to
its
accuracy
and
normality. 27
Donald
Sykes,
Virginia
Douglas
and
Gert
Morgenstern,
“The
Effect
of
Methylphenidate
(Ritalin)
on
Sustained
Attention
in
Hyperactive
Children,”
Psychopharmacology
25,
No.
3
(1972),
262-‐ 274. 28
Robert
Havighurst,
“Choosing
a
Middle
Path
for
the
Use
of
Drugs
with
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
61-‐77. 29
American
Psychiatric
Association,
Diagnostic
and
Statistical
Manual
of
Mental
Disorders,
Third
Edition
(Washington,
DC:
The
Association,
1980),
43-‐44.
See
also
Rick
Mayes
and
Allan
V.
Horwitz,
Dz Ǧ
ϐ ǡdz Journal
of
the
History
of
the
Behavioral
Sciences
41,
No.
3
(Summer
2005),
249-‐267.
As
the
authors
argue,
psychiatrists
wanted
to
ϐ Ǥ Ǧ place
throughout
the
1970s
had
provided
ample
negative
press.
By
pointing
to
science,
psychiatry
would
be
able
to
defend
itself
from
criticisms
that
claimed
that
it
was
a
pseudoscience.
Of
course,
I
argue
in
the
context
of
hyperkinetic
disorder,
the
psychiatric
community’s
response
to
anti-‐psychiatry
criticisms
was
only
part
of
the
whole
story.
See
also
Nick
Crossley,
Contesting
Psychiatry:
Social
Movements
in
Mental
Health
(London:
Routledge,
2006)
and
Christopher
Lane,
Shyness:
How
Normal
Behavior
Became
a
Sickness
(New
Haven:
Yale
University
Press,
2007). ͵Ͳ ǣ ϐ ǡ Diagnosis
and
Directives,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
ͳͻȌǤ ϐ ǡ I
believe,
implicitly
states
volumes
about
the
school’s
role
in
diagnosing
and
treating
children
with
hyperkinetic
disorder
(later
ϐ Ȍ Ǥ 31
Richard
A.
Johnson,
James
B.
Kenney,
John
B.
Davis,
“Developing
School
Policy
for
Use
of
Stimulant
Drugs
for
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
78-‐96. 32
Robert
Havighurst,
“Choosing
a
Middle
Path
for
the
Use
of
Drugs
with
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
61-‐77. 33
Robert
Sprague
and
Kenneth
Gadow,
“The
Role
of
the
Teacher
in
Drug
Treatment,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
109-‐140.
See
also
See
E.K.
Sleator
and
R.L.
Sprague,
“Pediatric
Pharmacotherapy,”
Principles
of
Psychopharmacology,
W.G.
Clark
and
J.
del
Guidice,
editors
(New
York:
Academic
Press,
1976),
E.K.
Sleator
and
R.L.
Sprague,
“Effects
of
Psychopharmacological
Agents
on
Learning
Disorders,”
Pediatric
Clinics
in
North
America
20
(1973),
719-‐35
and
J.S.
Werry,
R.L.
Sprague
and
M.N.
Cohen,
“Conners’
Teacher
Rating
Scale
for
Use
in
Drug
Studies
with
Children
–
An
Empirical
Study,”
Journal
of
Abnormal
Psychology
3
(1975):
217-‐99. 34
Ibid. 35
Roberta
Renstrom,
“The
Teacher
and
the
Social
Worker
in
Stimulant
Drug
Treatment
of
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
97-‐108. 36
See
Roger
Reger,
“Stimulating
the
Distractible
Child,”
The
Elementary
School
Journal
64,
No.
1
(October
1963),
42-‐48. 37
Robert
J.
Havighurst,
“Choosing
a
Middle
Path
for
the
Use
of
Drugs
with
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
61-‐77. 38
Roberta
Renstrom,
“The
Teacher
and
the
Social
Worker
in
Stimulant
Drug
Treatment
of
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
97-‐108. 39
See
Roberta
Renstrom,
“The
Teacher
and
the
Social
Worker
in
Stimulant
Drug
Treatment
of
Hyperactive
Children,”
The
School
Review
85,
No.
1
(November
1976),
97-‐108.
This
theme
lends
itself
to
a
discussion
on
the
effects
of
medicalization,
which
I
do
not
have
space
to
discuss
here
in
length.
Peter
Conrad,
Sociologist
ǡ ϐ as
“a
social
system
perspective
that
views
hyperactivity
as
a
relative,
as
opposed
to
absolute,
phenomenon.
Essentially,
it
views
hyperactivity
in
the
same
manner
as
any
form
of
social
deviance,
ǡ ǡ ϐ ǡ available
sanctions.”
See
Peter
Conrad,
Identifying
Hyperactive
Children:
The
Medicalization
of
Deviant
Behavior
(Lexington,
MA:
Lexington
Books,
1976).
On
medicalization,
see
Renee
Fox,
“The
Medicalization
and
Demedicalization
of
American
Society,”
Daedalus
(Winter
1977),
9-‐22.,
Simon
Williams
and
Michael
Calnan,
“The
Limits
of
Medicalization?,”
Social
Science
and
Medicine
42,
No.
12
(1996),
1609-‐1620.,
Elizabeth
Lunbeck,
The
Psychiatric
Persuasion:
Knowledge,
Gender
and
Power
in
Modern
America
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
1994).,
Peter
Conrad,
Medicalization
of
Society:
On
the
Transformation
of
Human
Conditions
into
Treatable
Disorders
(Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
University
Press,
2007).,
and
Irving
K.
Zola,
“Medicine
as
an
Institution
of
Social
Control,”
The
Sociological
Review
20,
No.
4
(1972),
487-‐504. 40
See
Cecil
R.
Reynolds
and
Elaine
Fletcher-‐Janzen,
Handbook
of
Clinical
Child
Neuropsychology
(New
York:
Springer,
2009). 41
See
Terese
C.
Jimenez,
Victoria
L.
Graf,
Michael
M.
Geber,
Education
for
All:
Critical
Issues
in
the
Education
of
Children
and
Youth
with
Disabilities
(San
Francisco:
John
Wiley
and
Sons,
2008). 42
Pennsylvania
Association
for
Retarded
Children
(PARC)
v.
Commonwealth
of
Pennsylvania
334
F.
Supp.
1257
United
States
District
Court
1971. 43
David
Neal
and
David
Kirp,
“The
Allure
of
Legalization
Reconsidered:
The
State
of
Special
Education,”
David
Kirp
and
Donald
Jensen,
editors,
School
Days,
Rule
Days:
The
Legalization
and
46 Regulation
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАй(Philadelphia:
┬атАитАйFalmer
┬атАитАйPress,
┬атАитАй1986),
┬атАитАй346-┬нтАР 348. 44
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйM.
┬атАитАйStephen
┬атАитАйLilly,
┬атАитАйтАЬSpecial
┬атАитАйEducation:
┬атАитАйA
┬атАитАйCooperative
┬атАитАйEffort,тАЭ
┬атАитАй Theory
┬атАитАйinto
┬атАитАйPractice
┬атАитАй14,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй2
┬атАитАй(April
┬атАитАй1975),
┬атАитАй82-┬нтАР89. 45
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйSee
┬атАитАйTerese
┬атАитАйC.
┬атАитАйJimenez,
┬атАитАйVictoria
┬атАитАйL.
┬атАитАйGraf,
┬атАитАйMichael
┬атАитАйM.
┬атАитАйGeber,
┬атАитАй Education
┬атАитАйfor
┬атАитАйAll:
┬атАитАйCritical
┬атАитАйIssues
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйChildren
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАй Youth
┬атАитАйwith
┬атАитАйDisabilities
┬атАитАй(San
┬атАитАйFrancisco:
┬атАитАйJohn
┬атАитАйWiley
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйSons,
┬атАитАй2008). 46
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйSenate
┬атАитАйpassed
┬атАитАйits
┬атАитАйversion
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйbill
┬атАитАйby
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйvote
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй83
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАй 10,
┬атАитАйwhile
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйHouse
┬атАитАйpassed
┬атАитАйits
┬атАитАйversion
┬атАитАйby
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйvote
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй375
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАй44.
┬атАитАйSee
┬атАитАй Lee
┬атАитАйAnderson,
┬атАитАйCongress
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйClassroom:
┬атАитАйFrom
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйCold
┬атАитАйWar
┬атАитАй to
┬атАитАйтАШNo
┬атАитАйChild
┬атАитАйLeft
┬атАитАйBehindтАЩ
┬атАитАй(University
┬атАитАйPark,
┬атАитАйPA:
┬атАитАйPennsylvania
┬атАитАйState
┬атАитАй University
┬атАитАйPress,
┬атАитАй2007)
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйJane
┬атАитАйE.
┬атАитАйSlenkovich,
┬атАитАйPL
┬атАитАй94-┬нтАР142
┬атАитАйas
┬атАитАйApplied
┬атАитАй to
┬атАитАйDSM-┬нтАРIII
┬атАитАйDiagnoses:
┬атАитАйAn
┬атАитАйAnalysis
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйDSM-┬нтАРIII
┬атАитАйDiagnoses
┬атАитАйvis-┬нтАР├а-┬нтАРvis
┬атАитАй Special
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАйLaw,
┬атАитАйHeather
┬атАитАйR.
┬атАитАйWade,
┬атАитАйeditor
┬атАитАй(Cupertino,
┬атАитАйCA:
┬атАитАй Kinghorn
┬атАитАйPress,
┬атАитАй1983). 47
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйFloyd
┬атАитАйG.
┬атАитАйHudson
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйSteve
┬атАитАйGraham,
┬атАитАйтАЬAn
┬атАитАйApproach
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАй Operationalizing
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйIEP,тАЭ
┬атАитАйLearning
┬атАитАйDisability
┬атАитАйQuarterly
┬атАитАй1,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй1
┬атАитАй (Winter
┬атАитАй1978),
┬атАитАй13-┬нтАР32. ═╢═║ ┬З┬Е┬Л┬О ╟д ┬З┬Ф┬Е┬З┬Ф╟б ┬С┬Д ┬О┬Й┬С┬Ь┬Ь┬Л┬Р┬З ┬Г┬Р┬Ж ┬С┬К┬Р ┬Ф┬Л╧Р┬Л┬О┬З┬Ц┬Ц┬Л╟б ╟▓ ┬Г┬Ф┬О┬Ы
┬Ж┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р╟г ┬Р ┬Р┬Г┬О┬Ы┬Х┬Л┬Х ┬С┬И ┬Ц┬К┬З ┬З┬Х┬З┬Г┬Ф┬Е┬К╟б╟│ ┬З┬Г┬Ф┬Р┬Л┬Р┬Й ┬Л┬Х┬Г┬Д┬Л┬О┬Л┬Ц┬Ы Quarterly
┬атАитАй2,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй2
┬атАитАй(Spring
┬атАитАй1979),
┬атАитАй21. 49
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйNicholas
┬атАитАйA.
┬атАитАйVacc
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйNancy
┬атАитАйKirst,
┬атАитАйтАЬEmotionally
┬атАитАйDisturbed
┬атАитАй Children
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйRegular
┬атАитАйClassroom
┬атАитАйTeachers,тАЭ
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйElementary
┬атАитАйSchool
┬атАитАй Journal
┬атАитАй77,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй4
┬атАитАй(March
┬атАитАй1977),
┬атАитАй307-┬нтАР317.
┬атАитАйSee
┬атАитАйLawrence
┬атАитАйDiller,
┬атАитАй Running
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАйRitalin
┬атАитАй(New
┬атАитАйYork:
┬атАитАйBantam
┬атАитАйBooks,
┬атАитАй1999),
┬атАитАй78.
┬атАитАйDiller
┬атАитАй makes
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйpoint
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАйstate
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАйacademic
┬атАитАйstandards
┬атАитАйwere
┬атАитАйraised;
┬атАитАйsubjects
┬атАитАй that
┬атАитАйwould
┬атАитАйbe
┬атАитАйtaught
┬атАитАйlater
┬атАитАйwould
┬атАитАйappear
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйyear
┬атАитАйor
┬атАитАйtwo
┬атАитАйearlier.
┬атАитАйI
┬атАитАй posit
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАйteachers
┬атАитАйmay
┬атАитАйhave
┬атАитАйbeen
┬атАитАйexperiencing
┬атАитАйadditional
┬атАитАйstress
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАй attempting
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАйmeet
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйdemand
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАйproduce
┬атАитАйтАШsmartтАЩ
┬атАитАйchildren
┬атАитАйwhile
┬атАитАй controlling
┬атАитАйdisruptive
┬атАитАйchildren. 50
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйAs
┬атАитАйI
┬атАитАйmentioned
┬атАитАйbefore,
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйpublicity
┬атАитАйover
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйBoston
┬атАитАй psychopharmacological
┬атАитАйstudy
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАй1971
┬атАитАйled
┬атАитАйto
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйpanel
┬атАитАйdiscussion
┬атАитАй amongst
┬атАитАйpsychiatrists,
┬атАитАйteachers
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйhistorians
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйimplications
┬атАитАй of
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйdebate.
┬атАитАйSheila
┬атАитАйRothman,
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйResearch
┬атАитАйAssociate
┬атАитАйat
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйCenter
┬атАитАй ┬И┬С┬Ф ┬С┬О┬Л┬Е┬Ы ┬З┬Х┬З┬Г┬Ф┬Е┬К╟б ┬Г┬Х┬Х┬З┬Ф┬Ц┬З┬Ж ┬Ц┬К┬Г┬Ц ┬Ч┬Х┬Л┬Р┬Й ┬Х┬Е┬Л┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л╧Р┬Л┬Е ┬Ц┬С┬С┬О┬Х ┬Л┬Р ┬Х┬Е┬К┬С┬С┬О┬Х was
┬атАитАйnot
┬атАитАйappropriate,
┬атАитАйas
┬атАитАйteachers
┬атАитАйтАУ
┬атАитАйnot
┬атАитАйscientists
┬атАитАйor
┬атАитАйpsychiatrists
┬атАитАй тАУ
┬атАитАйwere
┬атАитАйusing
┬атАитАйthem
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйpresenting
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйresults
┬атАитАйas
┬атАитАйfact.
┬атАитАйSee
┬атАитАйтАЬSpecial
┬атАитАй Supplement:
┬атАитАйMBD,
┬атАитАйDrug
┬атАитАйResearch
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйSchools,тАЭ
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйHasting
┬атАитАй Center
┬атАитАйReport
┬атАитАй6,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй3
┬атАитАй(June
┬атАитАй1976). 51
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйRichard
┬атАитАйDeGrandpre,
┬атАитАйRitalin
┬атАитАйNation:
┬атАитАйRapid-┬нтАРFire
┬атАитАйCulture
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАй Transformation
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйHuman
┬атАитАйConsciousness
┬атАитАй(New
┬атАитАйYork:
┬атАитАйW.W.
┬атАитАйNorton
┬атАитАй and
┬атАитАйCompany,
┬атАитАй2000),
┬атАитАй18. 52
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйCharles
┬атАитАйBradley,
┬атАитАйтАЬThe
┬атАитАйBehavior
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйChildren
┬атАитАйReceiving
┬атАитАй Benzedrine,тАЭ
┬атАитАйAmerican
┬атАитАйJournal
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйPsychiatry
┬атАитАй94
┬атАитАй(1937),
┬атАитАй577-┬нтАР88. 53
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйCharles
┬атАитАйBradley,
┬атАитАйтАЬPsychometric
┬атАитАйPerformance
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйChildren
┬атАитАй Receiving
┬атАитАйBenzedrine
┬атАитАйSulfate,тАЭ
┬атАитАйAmerican
┬атАитАйJournal
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйPsychiatry
┬атАитАй97
┬атАитАй (September
┬атАитАй1940),
┬атАитАй388-┬нтАР394. 54
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйElizabeth
┬атАитАйBromley,
┬атАитАйтАЬStimulating
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйNormal
┬атАитАйAdjustment:
┬атАитАй Misbehavior,
┬атАитАйAmphetamines
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйElectroencephalogram
┬атАитАйat
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАй Bradley
┬атАитАйHome
┬атАитАйfor
┬атАитАйChildren,тАЭ
┬атАитАйJournal
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйHistory
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйBehavioral
┬атАитАй Sciences
┬атАитАй42,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй4
┬атАитАй(Fall
┬атАитАй2006),
┬атАитАй379-┬нтАР398. 55
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйconcept
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйimage
┬атАитАйas
┬атАитАйobjectivity
┬атАитАйis
┬атАитАйinteresting,
┬атАитАйbut
┬атАитАйit
┬атАитАй is
┬атАитАйnot
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйtheme
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАйI
┬атАитАйcan
┬атАитАйcover
┬атАитАйhere.
┬атАитАйSee
┬атАитАйLorraine
┬атАитАйDaston
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйPeter
┬атАитАй Galison,
┬атАитАйObjectivity
┬атАитАй(New
┬атАитАйYork:
┬атАитАйZone
┬атАитАйBooks,
┬атАитАй2007). ═╖═╕ ┬К┬З┬Ф┬Ы┬О ╟д ┬О┬З┬Ъ┬Г┬Р┬Ж┬З┬Ф╟б ╟▓ ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц╚А ┬Ы┬Т┬З┬Ф┬Г┬Е┬Ц┬Л┬Ш┬Л┬Ц┬Ы ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф╟г EEG
┬атАитАйBiofeedback
┬атАитАйas
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйViable
┬атАитАйTreatmentтАЭ
┬атАитАйfrom
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйImpact
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйEEG
┬атАитАй Biofeedback:
┬атАитАйTreatment
┬атАитАйSessions
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйTheta/Beta
┬атАитАйRatio
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй ┬К┬Л┬О┬Ж┬Ф┬З┬Р ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц╚А ┬Ы┬Т┬З┬Ф┬Г┬Е┬Ц┬Л┬Ш┬Л┬Ц┬Ы ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф ╚Л ╟д ╟д ┬Ж┬Л┬Х┬Х╟д (unpublished),
┬атАитАйNorth
┬атАитАйCarolina
┬атАитАйCentral
┬атАитАйUniversity,
┬атАитАй1997). 57
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйrelationship
┬атАитАйbetween
┬атАитАйtechnology
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйpsychiatry
┬атАитАйis
┬атАитАй particularly
┬атАитАйinteresting
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйtopic
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАйis
┬атАитАйworth
┬атАитАйmore
┬атАитАйdiscussion.
┬атАитАй For
┬атАитАйmore
┬атАитАйinformation,
┬атАитАйsee:
┬атАитАйBetween
┬атАитАйTechnology
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйHumanity:
┬атАитАй The
┬атАитАйImpact
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйTechnology
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАйHealth
┬атАитАйCare
┬атАитАйEthics,
┬атАитАйChris
┬атАитАйGatsmans,
┬атАитАй editor
┬атАитАй(Leuven:
┬атАитАйLeuven
┬атАитАйUniversity
┬атАитАйPress,
┬атАитАй2002)
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйLeonard
┬атАитАйSaxe,
┬атАитАй ChildrenтАЩs
┬атАитАйMental
┬атАитАйHealth
┬атАитАйтАУ
┬атАитАйProblems
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйServices,
┬атАитАйA
┬атАитАйReport
┬атАитАйby
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАй
Synthesis,
┬атАитАйIssue
┬атАитАй1,
┬атАитАйMay
┬атАитАй2009
┬И╧Р┬Л┬Е┬З ┬С┬И ┬З┬Е┬К┬Р┬С┬О┬С┬Й┬Ы ┬Х┬Х┬З┬Х┬Х┬П┬З┬Р┬Ц ╚Л ┬Ч┬Ф┬К┬Г┬П╟б ╟г ┬Ч┬Н┬З ┬Р┬Л┬Ш┬З┬Ф┬Х┬Л┬Ц┬Ы Press,
┬атАитАй1987). 58
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйIndividuals
┬атАитАйwith
┬атАитАйDisabilities
┬атАитАйAct
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй1989:
┬атАитАйSenate
┬атАитАй Report
┬атАитАй101-┬нтАР204
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАйS.
┬атАитАй1824,
┬атАитАй101st
┬атАитАйCong.,
┬атАитАй1st
┬атАитАйsess.
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйтАЬJoint
┬атАитАйPolicy
┬атАитАй ┬З┬П┬С┬Ф┬Г┬Р┬Ж┬Ч┬П╟г ┬О┬Г┬Ф┬Л╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬С┬И ┬С┬О┬Л┬Е┬Ы ┬Ц┬С ┬Ж┬Ж┬Ф┬З┬Х┬Х ┬Ц┬К┬З ┬З┬З┬Ж┬Х ┬С┬И ┬К┬Л┬О┬Ж┬Ф┬З┬Р ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф┬Х ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К┬Л┬Р ┬З┬Р┬З┬Ф┬Г┬О ┬Г┬Р┬Ж╚А┬С┬Ф ┬Т┬З┬Е┬Л┬Г┬О ┬Ж┬Ч┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р╟б╟│ ┬Р┬Л┬Ц┬З┬Ж ┬Ц┬Г┬Ц┬З┬Х ┬З┬Т┬Г┬Ф┬Ц┬П┬З┬Р┬Ц ┬С┬И ┬Ж┬Ч┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р╟б ┬И╧Р┬Л┬Е┬З ┬С┬И Special
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйRehabilitative
┬атАитАйServices,
┬атАитАйSeptember
┬атАитАй16,
┬атАитАй1991. 59
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйA.J.
┬атАитАйZametkin,
┬атАитАйet
┬атАитАйal.,
┬атАитАйтАЬCerebral
┬атАитАйGlucose
┬атАитАйMetabolism
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАйAdults
┬атАитАй with
┬атАитАйHyperactivity
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйChildhood
┬атАитАйOnset,тАЭ
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйNew
┬атАитАйEngland
┬атАитАйJournal
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй Medicine
┬атАитАй323
┬атАитАй(November
┬атАитАй1990),
┬атАитАй1361-┬нтАР1366.
┬атАитАйThis
┬атАитАйis
┬атАитАйreally
┬атАитАйstriking,
┬атАитАй because
┬атАитАйthese
┬атАитАйadults
┬атАитАйwere
┬атАитАйdiagnosed
┬атАитАйwith
┬атАитАйтАШhyperkinetic
┬атАитАйdisorder
┬атАитАй ┬С┬И ┬Е┬К┬Л┬О┬Ж┬К┬С┬С┬Ж╟б╟п ┬Щ┬К┬Л┬Е┬К ┬К┬Г┬Ж ┬Л┬Ц┬Х ┬Ж┬З╧Р┬Л┬Р┬Л┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬Д┬Г┬Х┬З┬Ж ┬С┬Р ┬К┬Ы┬Т┬З┬Ф┬Г┬Е┬Ц┬Л┬Ш┬Л┬Ц┬Ы╟б not
┬атАитАйattention.
┬атАитАйADD,
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйother
┬атАитАйhand,
┬атАитАйas
┬атАитАйI
┬атАитАйmention,
┬атАитАйfocused
┬атАитАйon
┬атАитАй attention,
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйhyperactivity
┬атАитАйwas
┬атАитАйnot
┬атАитАйessential
┬атАитАйfor
┬атАитАйan
┬атАитАйADD
┬атАитАйdiagnosis.
┬атАитАй However,
┬атАитАйno
┬атАитАйone
┬атАитАйraised
┬атАитАйany
┬атАитАйconcerns
┬атАитАйabout
┬атАитАйthis
┬атАитАйdiscrepancy
┬атАитАйat
┬атАитАйall,
┬атАитАй which
┬атАитАйI
┬атАитАйposit
┬атАитАйdemonstrates
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАйADD
┬атАитАйwas
┬атАитАйsimply
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйnomenclature
┬атАитАй refashioning
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйhyperactivity. ═╕═▓ ╟▓ ┬З┬Х┬З┬Г┬Ф┬Е┬К┬З┬Ф┬Х ┬Л┬Р┬Ж ┬Ф┬Г┬Л┬Р ┬Л┬Р┬Н ┬Л┬Р ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф╟б╟│ Counterpoint
┬атАитАй(Winter
┬атАитАй1990). 61
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйA.J.
┬атАитАйZametkin,
┬атАитАйet
┬атАитАйal.,
┬атАитАйтАЬCerebral
┬атАитАйGlucose
┬атАитАйMetabolism
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАйAdults
┬атАитАй with
┬атАитАйHyperactivity
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйChildhood
┬атАитАйOnset,тАЭ
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйNew
┬атАитАйEngland
┬атАитАйJournal
┬атАитАй of
┬атАитАйMedicine
┬атАитАй323
┬атАитАй(November
┬атАитАй1990),
┬атАитАй1361.
┬атАитАйSince
┬атАитАйthis
┬атАитАйstudy,
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйwhole
┬атАитАй host
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйstudies
┬атАитАйwere
┬атАитАйpublished
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАйutilized
┬атАитАйZametkinтАЩs
┬атАитАйreasoning.
┬атАитАй For
┬атАитАйsome
┬атАитАйexamples
┬атАитАйsee:
┬атАитАйA.J.
┬атАитАйZametkin,
┬атАитАйet
┬атАитАйal.,
┬атАитАйтАЬBrain
┬атАитАйMetabolism
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАй ┬З┬З┬Р┬Г┬Й┬З┬Ф┬Х ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Ы┬Т┬З┬Ф┬Г┬Е┬Ц┬Л┬Ш┬Л┬Ц┬Ы ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф╟б╟│ ┬Ф┬Е┬К┬Л┬Ш┬З┬Х of
┬атАитАйGeneral
┬атАитАйPsychiatry
┬атАитАй50,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй5
┬атАитАй(1993),
┬атАитАйE.J.
┬атАитАйMetter,
┬атАитАйтАЬBrain-┬нтАРBehavior
┬атАитАй Relationships
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАйAphasia
┬атАитАйStudied
┬атАитАйby
┬атАитАйPositron
┬атАитАйEmission
┬атАитАйTomography,тАЭ
┬атАитАй Annals
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйNew
┬атАитАйYork
┬атАитАйAcademy
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйScience
┬атАитАй620
┬атАитАй(1991),
┬атАитАй153-┬нтАР164,
┬атАитАй C.
┬атАитАйDecarli,
┬атАитАйet
┬атАитАйal.,
┬атАитАйтАЬThe
┬атАитАйeffect
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйwhite
┬атАитАйmatter
┬атАитАйhyperintensity
┬атАитАйvolume
┬атАитАй on
┬атАитАйbrain
┬атАитАйstructure,
┬атАитАйcognitive
┬атАитАйperformance,
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйcerebral
┬атАитАйmetabolism
┬атАитАй of
┬атАитАйglucose
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАй51
┬атАитАйhealthy
┬атАитАйadults,тАЭ
┬атАитАйNeurology
┬атАитАй45,
┬атАитАйNo.
┬атАитАй11
┬атАитАй(November
┬атАитАй 1995),
┬атАитАй2077-┬нтАР2084.
┬атАитАйAfter
┬атАитАйZametkinтАЩs
┬атАитАйstudy,
┬атАитАйthough
┬атАитАйthis
┬атАитАйis
┬атАитАйa
┬атАитАйsidenote
┬атАитАй from
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйmain
┬атАитАйpoint
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйthis
┬атАитАйthesis,
┬атАитАйthere
┬атАитАйwas
┬атАитАйmore
┬атАитАйresearch
┬атАитАйthat
┬атАитАй studied
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйpossibility
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйADHD
┬атАитАйcontinuing
┬атАитАйinto
┬атАитАйadulthood.
┬атАитАйSee:
┬атАитАйPeter
┬атАитАй Conrad,
┬атАитАйThe
┬атАитАйSociology
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйHealth
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйIllness:
┬атАитАйCritical
┬атАитАйPerspectives,
┬атАитАй Seventh
┬атАитАйEdition
┬атАитАй(New
┬атАитАйYork:
┬атАитАйWorth
┬атАитАйPublishers,
┬атАитАй2005). ═╕═┤ ╟▓ ┬З┬Х┬З┬Г┬Ф┬Е┬К┬З┬Ф┬Х ┬Л┬Р┬Ж ┬Ф┬Г┬Л┬Р ┬Л┬Р┬Н ┬Л┬Р ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф╟б╟│ Counterpoint
┬атАитАй(Winter
┬атАитАй1990). ═╕═╡ ╟▓ ┬С┬Л┬Р┬Ц ┬С┬О┬Л┬Е┬Ы ┬З┬П┬С┬Ф┬Г┬Р┬Ж┬Ч┬П╟г ┬О┬Г┬Ф┬Л╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬С┬И ┬С┬О┬Л┬Е┬Ы ┬Ц┬С ┬Ж┬Ж┬Ф┬З┬Х┬Х ┬Ц┬К┬З ┬З┬З┬Ж┬Х ┬С┬И ┬К┬Л┬О┬Ж┬Ф┬З┬Р ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф┬Х ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К┬Л┬Р General
┬атАитАйand/or
┬атАитАйSpecial
┬атАитАйEducation,тАЭ
┬атАитАйUnited
┬атАитАйStates
┬атАитАйDepartment
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй ┬Ж┬Ч┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р╟б ┬И╧Р┬Л┬Е┬З ┬С┬И ┬Т┬З┬Е┬Л┬Г┬О ┬Ж┬Ч┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬Г┬Р┬Ж ┬З┬К┬Г┬Д┬Л┬О┬Л┬Ц┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬Ш┬З ┬З┬Ф┬Ш┬Л┬Е┬З┬Х╟б September
┬атАитАй16,
┬атАитАй1991. 64
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйChris
┬атАитАйE.
┬атАитАйClearman,
┬атАитАйтАЬLegal
┬атАитАйDevelopments
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАй for
┬атАитАйAll
┬атАитАйHandicapped
┬атАитАйChildren
┬атАитАйAct
┬атАитАй(1975)
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйIndividuals
┬атАитАй with
┬атАитАйDisabilities
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАйAct
┬атАитАй(1990),тАЭ
┬атАитАй(Ed.D.
┬атАитАйdiss.,
┬атАитАйUniversity
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАй Houston,
┬атАитАй1997).
┬атАитАйA
┬атАитАйplethora
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйgovernment
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйnon-┬нтАРgovernment
┬атАитАй guides
┬атАитАйsupported
┬атАитАйthe
┬атАитАйproper
┬атАитАйuse
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйstimulant
┬атАитАйdrugs.
┬атАитАйSee:
┬атАитАйSteven
┬атАитАй ╟д ┬О┬З┬П┬Г┬Р╟б ┬Т┬З┬Е┬Л┬Г┬О ┬Ж┬Ч┬Е┬Г┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬И┬С┬Ф ┬К┬Л┬О┬Ж┬Ф┬З┬Р ┬Щ┬Л┬Ц┬К ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц Disorder:
┬атАитАйCurrent
┬атАитАйIssues,
┬атАитАйCRS
┬атАитАйReport
┬атАитАйfor
┬атАитАйCongress
┬атАитАй(Washington
┬атАитАй D.C.:
┬атАитАй
┬атАитАйLibrary
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйCongress,
┬атАитАйCongressional
┬атАитАйResearch
┬атАитАйService,
┬атАитАй5
┬атАитАй December
┬атАитАй1991).,
┬атАитАйMary
┬атАитАйSusan
┬атАитАйFishbaugh,
┬атАитАйSection
┬атАитАй504:
┬атАитАйGuidelines
┬атАитАй for
┬атАитАйEducators
┬атАитАй(Helena,
┬атАитАйMT:
┬атАитАйMontana
┬атАитАйState
┬атАитАйDepartment
┬атАитАйof
┬атАитАйPublic
┬атАитАй Instruction,
┬атАитАйOctober
┬атАитАй1992).,
┬атАитАйPerry
┬атАитАйA.
┬атАитАйZirkel,
┬атАитАйтАЬThe
┬атАитАйApproaching
┬атАитАй ┬Т┬Л┬Ж┬З┬П┬Л┬Е ┬С┬И ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф╟б╟│ ┬Е┬К┬С┬С┬О ┬Ж┬П┬Л┬Р┬Л┬Х┬Ц┬Ф┬Г┬Ц┬С┬Ф ═╖═│╟б ┬С╟д 10
┬атАитАй(November
┬атАитАй1994),
┬атАитАй28-┬нтАР30.
┬атАитАйPatricia
┬атАитАйH.
┬атАитАйLatham
┬атАитАйand
┬атАитАйPeter
┬атАитАйS.
┬атАитАйLatham,
┬атАитАй ┬Ц┬Ц┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Л┬С┬Р ┬З╧Р┬Л┬Е┬Л┬Ц ┬Л┬Х┬С┬Ф┬Ж┬З┬Ф ┬Л┬Р ┬Е┬К┬С┬С┬О╟г ┬З┬Г┬Е┬К┬З┬Ф┬Х╟б ┬Ц┬Ч┬Ж┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Х ┬Г┬Р┬Ж ┬Г┬Ф┬З┬Р┬Ц┬Х тАУ
┬атАитАйPartners
┬атАитАйin
┬атАитАйEducation
┬атАитАй(Cabin
┬атАитАйJohn,
┬атАитАйMD:
┬атАитАйNational
┬атАитАйCenter
┬атАитАйfor
┬атАитАйLaw
┬атАитАй and
┬атАитАйLearning
┬атАитАйDisabilities,
┬атАитАй1998).
┬атАитАй
47
INTERVIEW:
Richard
Lewontin Professor
Emeritus
of
Biology Interviewed by Helen Yang, Harvard ‘12 How
did
you
become
interested
in
science? I
had
a
very
charismatic
high
school
biology
teacher.
A
bunch
of
us,
including
my
wife,
would
follow
him
around.
He
inspired
us.
And
when
I
came
to
Harvard,
I
decided
to
be
a
biology
major.
Frankly,
I
thought
I
could
have
been
a
historian
or
a
philosopher,
or
a
chemist,
though
probably
not
a
physicist
or
mathematician
(I
decided
I
wasn’t
smart
enough).
So
I
stuck
with
my
original
intention— biology.
After
getting
my
PhD
at
Columbia,
I
was
an
assistant
professor
in
biology
[at
North
Caroline
State
University],
and
I
fell
in
with
a
group
of
people
who
worked
with
Buckminster
Fuller
designing
geodesic
Ǥ ϐ computers,
and
I
saw
these
poor
people
struggling
away
calculating
those
things
by
hand,
so
I
offered
to
write
a
lot
of
computer
programs.
And
now
almost
all
the
domes
in
existence
were
calculated
using
my
programs.
I
seriously
considered
quitting
and
become
a
full
time
architectural
engineer.
A
strong
reason
that
held
me
back
was
that
I
had
a
family
that
I
had
to
support,
and
I
was
too
conservative
to
quit
my
job
and
take
a
chance
on
something
else.
So
I
stuck
with
what
I
was
Ǥ ϐ Ǥ
lesson.
So
when
I
came
back,
I
applied
myself.
This
was
the
best
thing
that
ever
happened
to
me.
ϐ solution
was
not
at
all
what
I
expected,
but
was
in
fact
a
serious
problem
with
numerical
errors
from
the
original
data
of
Tycho
Brahe
and
that
Kepler
had
a
terrible
time
ϐ Ǥ Eventually
he
got
the
best
possible
result
for
tracking
the
longitude
of
Mars
as
it
went
around
the
sky.
It
was
essentially
an
order
of
magnitude
better
than
what
anybody
had
done
before.
Then
he
discovered
that
when
he
was
looking
at
the
problem
of
latitudes
that
the
whole
thing
fell
apart.
He
said
the
hypothesis
has
gone
up
in
smoke
and
he
had
to
start
over
again.
Really?
Failing
was
the
best
thing
that
happened
to
you? Yeah,
it
made
me
grow
up. ϐ Ǥ
We
didn’t
know
how
to
measure
genetic
variation.
The
paper
I
published
with
Jack
Hubby
showing
much
variation
existed
between
individuals
and
how
ϐ ϐ Ǥ years,
people
did
nothing
but
do
what
we
did,
that
is,
measuring
genetic
variance
between
species.
I
was
the
What
was
your
Harvard
education
like? person
who
had
a
problem
and
no
way
to
solve
it.
Jack
I
got
thrown
out
my
sophomore
year
for
failing
my
was
a
guy
with
a
method
and
nothing
to
do
with
it. Ǥ ϐ Has
the
philosophy
of
teaching
life
sciences
changed
undergraduate
degree. since
when
you
were
a
student? How
did
you
fail
your
classes?
I
don’t
think
they
had
a
philosophy.
I
never
studied
in
high
school;
it
was
a
cinch.
So
I
came
to
college,
I
never
studied.
I
never
bothered
to
study
for
my
inorganic
chemistry
class
and
so
I
failed
my
exams.
I
wasn’t
expelled,
I
was
temporarily
sent
away
for
a
year,
told
to
get
a
non-‐academic,
hard
job,
and
if
I
got
a
recommendation
from
my
boss
in
a
year,
they’d
let
me
back
in
again.
How
has
learning
life
sciences
at
Harvard
changed
over
the
decades?
When
I
was
a
student,
there
was
a
single
department
of
biology,
since
then
molecular
biology
came
into
being,
so
the
department
got
broken
up.
The
cellular
and
developmental
biologists
didn’t
want
to
be
the
Dz ϐ dz ǫ evolutionary
biologists.
I
thought
the
two
needed
to
be
Sure.
That
made
me
realize
I
was
didn’t
want
to
be
together
for
intellectual
reasons.
Then
the
department
out
there,
in
the
real
world,
doing
hard
labor.
I
was
a
got
further
broken
up
into
molecular
biology,
biology,
shipping
clerk.
The
whole
idea
was
that
you
wouldn’t
and
biochemistry. do
pseudo-‐intellectual
work.
You
had
to
go
into
the
real
world
and
do
a
hard
job.
They
were
teaching
me
a
48
Do
 
  you
 
  think
 
  ethnic
 
  and
 
  gender
 
  diversity
 
  leads
 
  to
 
  But
 
 the
 
 big
 
 questions
 
 are
 
 still
 
 the
 
 same.
 
  any
 
 improvement
 
 in
 
 the
 
 lab? ‘™ ™‘—Ž† ›‘— †‡Ď?‹Â?‡ ’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘Â? ‰‡Â?‡–‹…•Ǎ Š‡ „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–• ™‘—Ž† Â?‘– „‡ ‘„˜‹‘—• –‘ Â?‡Ǥ ‘ǥ †‘Â?ǯ– think
 
  so.
 
  Who
 
  is
 
  doing
 
  well,
 
  who
 
  is
 
  contributing
 
  has
 
  The
 
  problem
 
  is,
 
  there’s
 
  a
 
  lot
 
  of
 
  variation
 
  between
 
  changed,
 
  but
 
  that’s
 
  a
 
  consequence
 
  of
 
  the
 
  overall
 
  trend.
 
  evolutionary
 
  story
 
  to
 
  evolutionary
 
  story.
 
  There’s
 
  When
 
  I
 
  think
 
  back,
 
  I’ve
 
  had
 
  lots
 
  and
 
  lots
 
  students
 
  differences
 
  in
 
  the
 
  story
 
  of
 
  human
 
  evolution
 
  and
 
  that
 
  pass
 
  through
 
  my
 
  lab,
 
  and
 
  if
 
  you
 
  ask
 
  me
 
  to
 
  think
 
  about
 
  ‘ˆ ƒ ˆ”—‹– Ď?Ž›Ǥ Š‡› Šƒ˜‡ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡Â?– Š‹•–‘”‹‡•Ǥ ‡ Â?Â?‘™ ethnic
 
 mixes,
 
 I
 
 wouldn’t
 
 think
 
 there
 
 was
 
 one
 
 particular
 
  the
 
  basic
 
  elements
 
  that
 
  go
 
  into
 
  them.
 
 
 
  I’m
 
  saying
 
  that
 
  ethnicity
 
 of
 
 students
 
 that
 
 made
 
 the
 
 most
 
 contribution. population
 
  genetics
 
  is
 
  a
 
  list
 
  of
 
  forces,
 
  it’s
 
  a
 
  theory
 
  of
 
 
 
  Except
 
 that
 
 women
 
 haven’t
 
 been
 
 as
 
 successful
 
 as
 
  how
 
 certain
 
 forces
 
 affect
 
 population
 
 change. men.
 
 
 
 Ethnic
 
 discrimination
 
 in
 
 science
 
 has
 
 disappeared.
 
  One
 
  constant
 
  worry
 
  of
 
  researchers
 
  is
 
  attempting
 
  to
 
  Being
 
  born
 
  smart
 
  is
 
  rubbish.
 
 
 
  Scientists
 
  been
 
  trying
 
  translate
 
  their
 
  work
 
  for
 
  the
 
  public
 
  to
 
  understand.
 
  ˜‡”› Šƒ”† –‘ Ď?‹Â?† Ž‹Â?Â? ‹Â? ‰‡Â?‡–‹…• –‘ ’‡”•‘Â?ƒŽ‹–› ‘” Regarding
 
  population
 
  genetics,
 
  do
 
  you
 
  think
 
  the
 
  intelligence.
 
 
 
 They’ve
 
 found
 
 nothing
 
 of
 
 interest.
 
 Zero. masses
 
 have
 
 an
 
 understanding
 
 of
 
 what
 
 it
 
 is,
 
 how
 
 it
 
  What
 
  kind
 
  of
 
  trends
 
  are
 
  you
 
  seeing
 
  in
 
  population
 
  works? ‰‡Â?‡–‹…• Â–Â‘Â†ÂƒÂ›ÇŤ ‘™ Šƒ• –Š‡ Ď?‹‡Ž† ‡˜‘Ž˜‡† ‘˜‡” –Š‡ Only
 
 your
 
 peers
 
 count.
 
 The
 
 people
 
 out
 
 there
 
 don’t
 
 exist.
 
  years? Some
 
  people
 
  are
 
  desperate
 
  to
 
  become
 
  famous
 
  in
 
  the
 
  Population
 
  scientists,
 
  like
 
  others,
 
  do
 
  what
 
  they
 
  can
 
  do.
 
  general
 
  public.
 
 
 
  They’re
 
  in
 
  a
 
  very
 
  small
 
  minority,
 
  and
 
  If
 
 they
 
 don’t
 
 have
 
 a
 
 technique
 
 for
 
 answering
 
 a
 
 question,
 
  they’re
 
 generally
 
 looked
 
 down
 
 upon
 
 by
 
 scientists. they
 
  don’t
 
  have
 
  it.
 
  Like
 
  the
 
  question
 
  of
 
  how
 
  much
 
 
 
  Let
 
  me
 
  tell
 
  you
 
  a
 
  story.
 
  There
 
  used
 
  to
 
  be
 
  a
 
  genetic
 
  variation
 
  between
 
  species
 
  before.
 
  They
 
  didn’t
 
  ’”‘‰”ƒÂ? ‹Â? •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Œ‘—”Â?ƒŽ‹•Â?ÇĄ Â?‹‰Š– ‡ŽŽ‘™•Š‹’•ǥ know
 
 how
 
 to
 
 answer
 
 that
 
 question,
 
 so
 
 they
 
 didn’t
 
 ask
 
  ™Š‹…Š „”‘—‰Š– •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Œ‘—”Â?ƒŽ‹•–• ‹Â? …‘Â?–ƒ…– ™‹–Š that. scientists.
 
 For
 
 a
 
 long
 
 while,
 
 I
 
 thought
 
 they
 
 were
 
 really
 
 
 
  Modern
 
  genetics
 
  is
 
  now
 
  thoroughly
 
  molecular.
 
  ignorant,
 
  the
 
  stuff
 
  they
 
  wrote
 
  was
 
  terrible.
 
  But
 
  then
 
  People
 
  are
 
  still
 
  sequencing
 
  DNA
 
  like
 
  crazy.
 
  But
 
  the
 
  big
 
  I
 
  realized
 
  that
 
  no
 
  editor
 
  will
 
  allow
 
  you
 
  to
 
  publish
 
  a
 
  question
 
 hasn’t
 
 changed.
 
 We’re
 
 still
 
 trying
 
 to
 
 understand
 
  column
 
 on
 
 science
 
 that’s
 
 unclear
 
 and
 
 highly
 
 technical. how
 
  much
 
  variation
 
  exists
 
  between
 
  individuals,
 
  what
 
 
 
  The
 
  public’s
 
  interest
 
  in
 
  science
 
  is
 
  not
 
  about
 
  forces
 
  are
 
  at
 
  play
 
  that
 
  account
 
  for
 
  these
 
  differences,
 
  fundamental
 
  discoveries
 
  in
 
  science.
 
  It’s
 
  about
 
  what
 
  and
 
 the
 
 importance
 
 of
 
 natural
 
 selection. •…‹‡Â?–‹•–• ƒ”‡ Â?ƒÂ?‹Â?‰ –Šƒ– …ƒÂ? †‹”‡…–Ž› „‡Â?‡Ď?‹– –Š‡
 
  New
 
 tools
 
 are
 
 available
 
 to
 
 answer
 
 old
 
 questions. public.
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
49
Chlorpromazine:
 
  An
 
 International
 
 Revolution?
 
  An
 
 analysis
 
 of
 
 the
 
 British
 
 response
 
 in
 
 the
 
 1950s
 
 to
 
 the
 
 discovery
 
 of
 
 chlorpromazine By Wendy Ying, Harvard ‘10 In
 
 1952,
 
 a
 
 miracle
 
 drug
 
 was
 
 born.
 
 
 
 Jean
 
 Delay
 
 and
 
 Pierre
 
  Deniker,
 
  two
 
  psychiatrists
 
  at
 
  the
 
  Sainte
 
  Anne
 
  Hospital
 
  in
 
  Paris,
 
  discovered
 
  that
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  could
 
  turn
 
  schizophrenic
 
 patients
 
 into
 
 rational
 
 and
 
 tranquil
 
 people.
 
  In
 
 1954,
 
 when
 
 the
 
 FDA
 
 approved
 
 chlorpromazine
 
 as
 
 the
 
  Ď?‹”•– †”—‰ –‘ „‡ —•‡† ‹Â? ’•›…Š‹ƒ–”‹… ‹Â?–‡”˜‡Â?–‹‘Â?ÇĄ ƒ Â?‡™ generation
 
 of
 
 psychiatric
 
 therapy
 
 in
 
 the
 
 U.S.
 
 commenced.
 
  Almost
 
 overnight,
 
 all
 
 other
 
 treatments,
 
 such
 
 as
 
 insulin
 
  coma
 
  therapy
 
  and
 
  frontal
 
  lobotomy,
 
  came
 
  to
 
  an
 
  abrupt
 
  end.
 
  This
 
  drastic
 
  change
 
  in
 
  treatments
 
  had
 
  a
 
  dramatic
 
  effect
 
  on
 
  the
 
  U.S.
 
  economy
 
  and
 
  healthcare.
 
  Mental
 
  hospital
 
  patients
 
  became
 
  hopeful
 
  about
 
  the
 
  prospect
 
  for
 
  a
 
  satisfactory
 
  treatment
 
  for
 
  their
 
  illnesses.1
 
  Overall,
 
  the
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  revolution
 
  forever
 
  changed
 
  the
 
  way
 
  Americans
 
  valued
 
  the
 
  role
 
  of
 
  drugs
 
  in
 
  psychiatric
 
  treatment.
 
  Patients
 
  could
 
  now
 
  be
 
  treated
 
  and
 
  sent
 
  home,
 
  rather
 
  than
 
  staying
 
  as
 
  inpatients
 
  in
 
  mental
 
  hospital
 
 wards.
 
 In
 
 Great
 
 Britain,
 
 the
 
 number
 
 of
 
 inpatient
 
  residents
 
 in
 
 mental
 
 hospitals
 
 decreased
 
 sharply
 
 in
 
 the
 
  mid-Ââ€?1950s.2
 
  Could
 
  this
 
  change
 
  be
 
  attributed
 
  to
 
  the
 
  success
 
  of
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  in
 
  Britain?
 
  Interestingly,
 
  British
 
 psychiatrists
 
 were
 
 much
 
 less
 
 enthusiastic
 
 about
 
  the
 
  advent
 
  of
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  than
 
  those
 
  in
 
  the
 
  U.S.
 
  Š‡‹” •Â?‡’–‹…‹•Â? –‘™ƒ”† –Š‡ „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–• ‘ˆ …ŠŽ‘”’”‘Â?ƒœ‹Â?‡ highlights
 
  the
 
  fact
 
  that
 
  the
 
  American
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  phenomenon
 
  did
 
  not
 
  translate
 
  into
 
  an
 
  international
 
  sensation
 
 overnight.
 
 Rather,
 
 the
 
 chlorpromazine
 
 story
 
 is
 
  multifaceted,
 
 and,
 
 in
 
 the
 
 case
 
 of
 
 Britain,
 
 chlorpromazine
 
  was
 
  not
 
  incorporated
 
  into
 
  all
 
  mental
 
  hospitals
 
  of
 
  the
 
  1950s
 
  as
 
  the
 
  miracle
 
  drug.
 
  This
 
  heterogeneity
 
  in
 
  the
 
  ‹Â?–‡”Â?ƒ–‹‘Â?ƒŽ ”‡•’‘Â?•‡ –‘ …ŠŽ‘”’”‘Â?ƒœ‹Â?‡ ”‡Ď?Ž‡…–• –Š‡ differential
 
  effectiveness
 
  of
 
  previously
 
  established
 
  treatments
 
 for
 
 schizophrenia
 
 in
 
 Britain.
 
 
 
  One
 
  of
 
  the
 
  clearest
 
  indications
 
  of
 
  the
 
  difference
 
  in
 
  reaction
 
  to
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  between
 
  Britain
 
  and
 
  the
 
  U.S.
 
  occurred
 
  at
 
  the
 
  First
 
  International
 
  Congress
 
  of
 
  Neuropharmacology
 
  in
 
  Rome
 
  in
 
  1958.
 
  Sir
 
  Aubrey
 
  Lewis,
 
  a
 
  professor
 
  of
 
  psychiatry
 
  at
 
  the
 
  Institute
 
  of
 
  Psychiatry
 
  in
 
  London,
 
  gave
 
  a
 
  speech
 
  that
 
  highlighted
 
  the
 
  American
 
  optimism
 
  vis-Ââ€?Ă -Ââ€?vis
 
  the
 
  British
 
  pessimism
 
  regarding
 
  the
 
  effects
 
  of
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  and
 
  reserpine,
 
  another
 
 schizophrenia
 
 drug,
 
 in
 
 mental
 
 hospitals.3
 
 Lewis
 
  opened
 
  his
 
  speech
 
  by
 
  citing
 
  a
 
  previous
 
  speech
 
  given
 
  by
 
  Dr.
 
  Henry
 
  Brill,
 
  who
 
  had
 
  given
 
  a
 
  previous
 
  presentation
 
 
arguing
 
  that
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  was
 
  critical
 
  in
 
  decreasing
 
  the
 
 number
 
 of
 
 patients
 
 in
 
 mental
 
 hospitals
 
 and
 
 offered
 
 a
 
  successful
 
 treatment
 
 option
 
 for
 
 patients.4
 
 He
 
 had
 
 noted
 
  that
 
  since
 
  1955,
 
  there
 
  had
 
  been
 
  a
 
  sudden
 
  decrease
 
  in
 
  mental
 
  hospital
 
  patients
 
  throughout
 
  the
 
  world,
 
  which
 
  coincided
 
  with
 
  the
 
  rise
 
  of
 
  psychotropic
 
  drugs.
 
  In
 
  1954,
 
  the
 
  population
 
  in
 
  New
 
  York
 
  state
 
  mental
 
  hospitals
 
  was
 
  growing
 
  twice
 
  as
 
  fast
 
  as
 
  the
 
  general
 
  state
 
  population.
 
  Brill
 
  had
 
  pointed
 
  out
 
  that,
 
  after
 
  January
 
  1955,
 
  when
 
  a
 
  drug
 
  therapy
 
  program
 
  with
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  and
 
  reserpine
 
 was
 
 undertaken,
 
 patient
 
 numbers
 
 decreased
 
  by
 
  approximately
 
  500
 
  patients.
 
  After
 
  analyzing
 
  statistical
 
  and
 
  clinical
 
  data,
 
  Brill
 
  had
 
  concluded
 
  that
 
  “these
 
  changes
 
  [in
 
  patient
 
  number]
 
  were
 
  caused
 
  by
 
  the
 
  introduction
 
 of
 
 the
 
 drugs
 
 to
 
 a
 
 very
 
 material
 
 degree
 
 and
 
  were
 
 not
 
 coincidental.�5
 
  Lewis
 
 then
 
 countered
 
 Brill’s
 
 argument,
 
 asserting
 
  instead
 
 that,
 
 at
 
 least
 
 in
 
 Britain,
 
 chlorpromazine
 
 was
 
 not
 
  the
 
 main
 
 factor
 
 that
 
 brought
 
 about
 
 the
 
 sudden
 
 decrease
 
  ‹Â? ’ƒ–‹‡Â?– Â?—Â?„‡”•Ǥ ”‘Â? –Š‡ ˜‡”› Ď?‹”•– •‡Â?–‡Â?…‡ ‘ˆ Š‹• speech,
 
  Lewis
 
  displayed
 
  doubt
 
  about
 
  Brill’s
 
  report.
 
  He
 
  conceded
 
 that
 
 he
 
 did
 
 not
 
 have
 
 the
 
 data
 
 to
 
 dispute
 
 Brill’s
 
  assertions,
 
 but
 
 stated
 
 that:
 
  ”‹–‹•Š Ď?‹‰—”‡• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹Â?‰ Â?‡Â?–ƒŽ Š‘•’‹–ƒŽ populations
 
  impose
 
  caution
 
  in
 
  giving
 
  the
 
 pharmacological
 
 action
 
 of
 
 these
 
 new
 
  drugs
 
  [chlorpromazine
 
  and
 
  reserpine]
 
  most
 
  of
 
  the
 
  credit
 
  for
 
  the
 
  undoubted
 
  fall
 
  that
 
  has
 
  occurred
 
  in
 
  the
 
  absolute
 
  number
 
  of
 
  people
 
  resident
 
  in
 
  certain
 
  mental
 
 hospitals.6 ‡™‹• Â?‘–‡† –Šƒ– ƒŽ–Š‘—‰Š –Š‡ Ď?‹‰—”‡• ˆ‘” Â?‡Â?–ƒŽ hospitals
 
 throughout
 
 England
 
 and
 
 Wales
 
 show
 
 a
 
  sharp
 
  shift
 
  from
 
  a
 
  rise
 
  in
 
  patient
 
  numbers
 
  in
 
  the
 
  1954-Ââ€? 1955
 
 period
 
 to
 
 a
 
 decline
 
 in
 
 the
 
 1955-Ââ€?1956
 
 period,
 
 the
 
  decrease
 
 in
 
 individual
 
 mental
 
 hospitals
 
 has
 
 been
 
 steady.
 
  ††‹–‹‘Â?ÂƒÂŽÂŽÂ›ÇĄ ‡™‹• …‹–‡† •’‡…‹Ď?‹… …ƒ•‡ •–—†‹‡• ‹Â? ™Š‹…Š the
 
 percentage
 
 of
 
 patients
 
 discharged
 
 in
 
 1955-Ââ€?1956
 
 that
 
  were
 
  treated
 
  with
 
  psychotropic
 
  drugs
 
  was
 
  only
 
  about
 
  ʹͲΨ ƒÂ?† ‹Â? ™Š‹…Š –Š‡”‡ ™ƒ• Â?‘ •–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽŽ› •‹‰Â?‹Ď?‹…ƒÂ?– difference
 
  in
 
  the
 
  duration
 
  of
 
  stay
 
  between
 
  those
 
  who
 
  received
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  and
 
  those
 
  who
 
  had
 
  not.
 
  For
 
  schizophrenia
 
 patients
 
 in
 
 particular,
 
 the
 
 quittance
 
 rate
 
  in
 
  England
 
  and
 
  Wales
 
  had
 
  actually
 
  been
 
  rising
 
  steadily
 
 
50 since
 
 1950.7
 
  To
 
  explain
 
  the
 
  undisputed
 
  drop
 
  in
 
  patient
 
  number
 
  in
 
  Britain
 
  between
 
  1954
 
  and
 
  1956,
 
  Lewis
 
  asserted
 
 that
 
 “it
 
 is
 
 fairly
 
 clear
 
 that
 
 one
 
 or
 
 several
 
 potent
 
  ‹Â?Ď?Ž—‡Â?…‡• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡Â? ƒ– ™‘”Â? „‡•‹†‡• –Š‡ Â?‡™ †”—‰•Ǥdz8
 
  Since
 
  World
 
  War
 
  II,
 
  Britain
 
  had
 
  entered
 
  a
 
  vigorous
 
  phase
 
 of
 
 reformation
 
 that
 
 resulted
 
 in
 
 increasingly
 
 active
 
  outpatient
 
  and
 
  domiciliary
 
  services
 
  and
 
  a
 
  determined
 
  effort
 
  at
 
  rehabilitating
 
  chronic
 
  schizophrenics.
 
  The
 
  length
 
  of
 
  time
 
  that
 
  patients
 
  stayed
 
  as
 
  inpatients
 
  in
 
  mental
 
  hospitals
 
  had
 
  also
 
  decreased.
 
  Lewis’
 
  ultimate
 
  conclusion
 
 was
 
 that:
 
  the
 
  information
 
  from
 
  individual
 
  hospitals
 
  ‌
 
  points
 
  to
 
  the
 
  drugs
 
  (mainly
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  and
 
  other
 
  phenothiazines)
 
  as
 
  adjuncts
 
  rather
 
  than
 
  as
 
  prime
 
  movers
 
  in
 
  the
 
  drive
 
  towards
 
  getting
 
  chronic
 
  patients
 
  back
 
  into
 
  the
 
  community‌I
 
  would
 
  dissent
 
  therefore
 
  from
 
  the
 
  extreme
 
  view
 
  that
 
  the
 
  advent
 
  of
 
 these
 
 drugs
 
 has
 
 revolutionized
 
 mental
 
  hospital
 
 practice.9 Moreover,
 
  Lewis
 
  drew
 
  a
 
  comparison
 
  between
 
  the
 
  excitement
 
 over
 
 the
 
 promise
 
 of
 
 chlorpromazine
 
 and
 
 that
 
  ‘˜‡” –Š‡ ‹Â?†‹”‡…– „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–• ‘ˆ ‡Ž‡…–”‘…‘Â?˜—Ž•‹˜‡ •Š‘…Â? therapy
 
  (ECT)
 
  in
 
  Britain
 
  20
 
  years
 
  previously.10
 
  ECT
 
  is
 
  a
 
  form
 
  of
 
  psychiatric
 
  therapy
 
  in
 
  which
 
  brief
 
  seizures
 
  are
 
  induced
 
  in
 
  patients’
 
  brains
 
  via
 
  electric
 
  currents.
 
  The
 
  enthusiasm
 
 over
 
 ECT
 
 motivated
 
 a
 
 stream
 
 of
 
 rehabilitation
 
  efforts
 
  in
 
  hospitals
 
  that
 
  promoted
 
  improvement
 
  not
 
  †‹”‡…–Ž› ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ –Š‡ „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–• ‘ˆ ‹–•‡ŽˆǤ ‡™‹• predicted
 
  the
 
  same
 
  future
 
  for
 
  chlorpromazine—it
 
  was
 
  only
 
  valuable
 
  in
 
  its
 
  power
 
  to
 
  excite
 
  the
 
  public
 
  and
 
  generate
 
 momentum
 
 for
 
 improvements
 
 in
 
 the
 
 practice
 
  of
 
  psychiatric
 
  medicine
 
  and
 
  hospital
 
  care,
 
  but
 
  not
 
  as
 
  ƒ •—……‡••ˆ—Ž ƒÂ?–‹’•›…Š‘–‹… †”—‰Ǥ ‡™‹• ‡š‡Â?’Ž‹Ď?‹‡† the
 
  view
 
  taken
 
  by
 
  much
 
  of
 
  Britain
 
  toward
 
  the
 
  advent
 
  of
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  and
 
  other
 
  novel
 
  drug
 
  therapies.
 
  Ž–Š‘—‰Š –Š‡•‡ Â?‡™ †”—‰• †‹† Šƒ˜‡ …‡”–ƒ‹Â? „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–•ǥ they
 
  were
 
  often
 
  overshadowed
 
  by
 
  disadvantages,
 
  and
 
  ™‡”‡ Â?‘– „‡Ž‹‡˜‡† –‘ „‡ „‡Â?‡Ď?‹…‹ƒŽ ‡Â?‘—‰Š –‘ ”‡•—Ž– ‹Â? ƒ neuropharmacological
 
 revolution
 
 in
 
 Britain.
 
  In
 
  addition
 
  to
 
  Lewis’
 
  statistical
 
  analysis
 
  of
 
  institutional
 
  conditions
 
  in
 
  mental
 
  hospitals,
 
  other
 
  British
 
  psychiatrists
 
  and
 
  researchers
 
  also
 
  conducted
 
  •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š †‹”‡…–Ž› –‡•–‹Â?‰ –Š‡ ‡ˆˆ‡…–• ‘ˆ chlorpromazine.
 
 In
 
 an
 
 article
 
 published
 
 in
 
 The
 
 Lancet
 
 in
 
  1955,
 
  a
 
  group
 
  of
 
  British
 
  scientists
 
  including
 
  Sir
 
  Gerard
 
  Vaughan,
 
  senior
 
  registrar
 
  in
 
  psychiatry
 
  at
 
  the
 
  Bexley
 
  ‘•’‹–ƒŽ ‹Â? Â?‰ŽƒÂ?†ǥ ”‡’‘”–‡† –Š‡‹” Ď?‹Â?†‹Â?‰• ‘Â? Š‘™ chlorpromazine
 
 treatment
 
 affected
 
 symptoms
 
 exhibited
 
  in
 
  schizophrenic
 
  patients
 
  and
 
  those
 
  with
 
  affective
 
  diseases.11
 
 200
 
 patients
 
 were
 
 placed
 
 on
 
 chlorpromazine
 
  for
 
  a
 
  month,
 
  and
 
  the
 
  ones
 
  that
 
  showed
 
  improvement
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
were
 
  subsequently
 
  taken
 
  off
 
  the
 
  drug
 
  to
 
  test
 
  whether
 
  the
 
 effect
 
 was
 
 able
 
 to
 
 be
 
 maintained.
 
 They
 
 found
 
 that
 
 of
 
  the
 
  200
 
  cases,
 
  62%
 
  improved,
 
  and
 
  28%
 
  showed
 
  strong
 
  improvement
 
  or
 
  became
 
  symptom-Ââ€?free.
 
  38%
 
  remained
 
  unimproved.12
 
  Assessing
 
  the
 
  various
 
  symptoms
 
  of
 
  the
 
  patients
 
 demonstrated
 
 that
 
 chlorpromazine
 
 was
 
 effective
 
  in
 
 reducing
 
 agitation,
 
 over-Ââ€?activity,
 
 and
 
 manic
 
 behavior,
 
  but
 
  was
 
  ineffective
 
  in
 
  reducing
 
  several
 
  other
 
  basic
 
  schizophrenic
 
 symptoms,
 
 such
 
 as
 
 thought
 
 disturbances,
 
  delusions,
 
  and
 
  hallucinations.
 
  In
 
  a
 
  second
 
  experiment,
 
  48
 
  female
 
  patients
 
  were
 
  either
 
  given
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  or
 
  a
 
  placebo,
 
  and
 
  were
 
  observed
 
  over
 
  the
 
  course
 
  of
 
  a
 
  Â?‘Â?–ŠǤ Š‡ ƒ—–Š‘”• ˆ‘—Â?† ƒ •–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽŽ› •‹‰Â?‹Ď?‹…ƒÂ?– „‡Â?‡Ď?‹– –‘ —•‹Â?‰ …ŠŽ‘”’”‘Â?ƒœ‹Â?‡Ȅ͸͚Ψ ‘ˆ ’ƒ–‹‡Â?–• ‘Â? chlorpromazine
 
  showed
 
  improvement,
 
  while
 
  only
 
  20%
 
  of
 
 patients
 
 on
 
 placebo
 
 improved,
 
 none
 
 of
 
 which
 
 showed
 
  drastic
 
 improvement.13
 
  The
 
  results
 
  from
 
  this
 
  study
 
  demonstrated
 
  clear
 
  improvement
 
  in
 
  the
 
  patients’
 
  condition
 
  after
 
  using
 
  …ŠŽ‘”’”‘Â?ƒœ‹Â?‡Ǥ Š‡ ƒ—–Š‘”• ‡˜‡Â? Â?‡Â?–‹‘Â?‡† •’‡…‹Ď?‹… schizophrenic
 
  symptoms
 
  that
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  helped
 
  ”‡†—…‡ǥ ‹Â?†‹…ƒ–‹Â?‰ –Šƒ– –Š‡”‡ ™ƒ• ƒ †‹”‡…– „‡Â?‡Ď?‹– –‘ using
 
 chlorpromazine.
 
 
 
 Despite
 
 the
 
 seemingly
 
 optimistic
 
  results
 
  obtained,
 
  the
 
  authors
 
  derived
 
  a
 
  surprising
 
  Â?‡‰ƒ–‹˜‡ …‘Â?…Ž—•‹‘Â? ˆ”‘Â? –Š‡‹” •–—†›Ǥ Â? –Š‡ Ď?‹”•– ˆ‡™ sentences
 
  of
 
  their
 
  conclusion,
 
  they
 
  stated
 
  outright
 
  that
 
  “chlorpromazine
 
 is
 
 clearly
 
 not
 
 a
 
 curative
 
 drug,�
 
 because
 
  ‹–• „‡Â?‡Ď?‹–• ™‡”‡ ’—”‡Ž› •›Â?’–‘Â?ƒ–‹…Ǥ14
 
 Such
 
 a
 
 negative
 
  statement
 
 emphasizes
 
 the
 
 author’s
 
 overarching
 
 cynicism
 
  and
 
 caution
 
 in
 
 promoting
 
 the
 
 use
 
 of
 
 chlorpromazine.
 
 In
 
  addition,
 
 the
 
 authors
 
 believed
 
 that
 
 “chlorpromazine
 
 is
 
 of
 
  limited
 
 use
 
 as
 
 an
 
 adjunct
 
 to
 
 other
 
 forms
 
 of
 
 therapy,�
 
 and
 
  listed
 
  only
 
  three
 
  instances
 
  when
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  alone
 
  was
 
 useful.15
 
 The
 
 results
 
 from
 
 this
 
 study
 
 suggested
 
 hope
 
  for
 
 the
 
 administration
 
 of
 
 chlorpromazine,
 
 and
 
 indicated
 
  that
 
 further
 
 testing
 
 would
 
 be
 
 worthwhile.
 
 However,
 
 they
 
  decided
 
 to
 
 dismiss
 
 the
 
 possibility
 
 that
 
 chlorpromazine
 
  could
 
  act
 
  alone
 
  as
 
  a
 
  successful
 
  schizophrenic
 
  drug,
 
  demonstrating
 
 the
 
 lack
 
 of
 
 enthusiasm
 
 and
 
 optimism
 
 for
 
  chlorpromazine
 
 in
 
 Britain.
 
  Several
 
  other
 
  studies
 
  conducted
 
  by
 
  British
 
  psychiatrists
 
  in
 
  the
 
  1950s
 
  and
 
  60s
 
  also
 
  tested
 
  the
 
  hypothesis
 
  that
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  was
 
  not
 
  as
 
  effective
 
  as
 
  Delay
 
 and
 
 Deniker
 
 hailed
 
 it
 
 to
 
 be.
 
 
 
 A
 
 paper
 
 published
 
 in
 
 a
 
  1967
 
 issue
 
 of
 
 the
 
 British
 
 Journal
 
 of
 
 Psychiatry
 
 cited
 
 a
 
 list
 
  ‘ˆ –‡Â? •–—†‹‡• ˆ”‘Â? ͳ͜͝͡ –‘ ͳ͝͸ͳ –Šƒ– Šƒ† ˆƒ‹Ž‡† –‘ Ď?‹Â?† ‡˜‹†‡Â?…‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡ˆĎ?‹…ƒ…› ‘ˆ …ŠŽ‘”’”‘Â?ƒœ‹Â?‡Ǥ16
 
  In
 
  their
 
  longitudinal
 
  study
 
  of
 
  long-Ââ€?stay
 
  psychiatric
 
  patients,
 
  the
 
  authors
 
  found
 
  that
 
  chlorpromazine
 
  may
 
  have
 
  toxic
 
  effects
 
  when
 
  administered
 
  to
 
  patients
 
  for
 
  a
 
  long
 
  ’‡”‹‘† ‘ˆ –‹Â?‡Ǥ Š‡› Ç˛Â…ÂƒÂ—Â–Â‹Â‘Â?Č?‡†Č? ƒ‰ƒ‹Â?•– –Š‡ …‘Â?Ď?‹†‡Â?– substitution
 
 of
 
 newer
 
 preparations
 
 [of
 
 chlorpromazine],�
 
  and
 
  questioned
 
  the
 
  “continuing
 
  practice
 
  of
 
  prescribing
 
  tranquilizing
 
  drugs
 
  to
 
  patients
 
  en
 
  masse.�17
 
  Such
 
 
51 negative
conclusions
reveal
the
hesitation
of
British
researchers
and
psychiatrists
to
enthusiastically
embrace
the
promise
of
chlorpromazine.
Some
other
British
psychiatrists
were
even
less
optimistic.
In
his
seminal
and
widely
cited
paper
published
in
The
Lancet
in
1958,
Dr.
N.H.
Rathod,
senior
registrar
at
the
Cane
Hill
Hospital
in
Surrey,
attempted
to
elucidate
the
effects
of
the
environment
on
the
psychiatric
patient
and
began
his
paper
by
asserting
that
“there
is
good
reason
to
think
that
tranquilizing
drugs
are
now
being
used
too
often
and
in
excess.”18 ǡ ϐ to
achieve
as
much
tranquility
in
patients
as
the
drug
chlorpromazine
did.
In
his
study,
chlorpromazine
was
administered
to
patients
for
varying
amounts
of
time,
after
which
a
placebo
was
switched
in
without
the
patient’s
knowledge.
At
the
same
time
that
the
placebo
was
administered,
an
intensive
occupational
therapy
program
was
introduced.
Additionally,
some
patients
in
the
therapy
program
were
placed
in
wards
that
fully
accepted
the
occupational
therapy
program,
with
nurses
and
staff
who
endorsed
it
enthusiastically.
Some
other
patients
entered
wards
in
which
the
occupational
therapy
program
was
not
effectively
implemented.
It
was
found
that
the
group
of
patients
in
the
ward
that
accepted
the
occupational
therapy
program
improved
drastically,
while
those
in
the
ward
that
did
not
embrace
the
therapy
actually
worsened.
Additionally,
during
the
period
of
time
in
which
there
were
the
most
patients
on
chlorpromazine
treatment,
the
improvement
level
was
approximately
equal
to
the
improvement
achieved
during
the
period
when
most
patients
were
on
occupational
therapy.19
Rathod’s
results
implied
ǯ ϐ reducing
schizophrenic
symptoms.
Although
no
individual
patients
were
followed
rigorously,
Rathod
decisively
concluded
from
the
above
experiment
that
“the
most
probable
explanation
is
that
tranquilizers
have
only
a
“limited
effect.”20
Rathod’s
conclusion
demonstrates
the
prevailing
view
in
Britain
that
chlorpromazine
was
not
necessary
to
generate
improvements
in
a
patient’s
condition.
In
fact,
Rathod
believed
that
intensive
and
individualistic
social
therapy
could
not
only
keep
the
wards
as
tranquil
as
with
chlorpromazine,
but
could
also
induce
further
progress
by
improving
ward
conditions.21
After
considering
Rathod’s
assertion
that
humane
and
social
ward
conditions
do
just
as
well,
if
not
better,
than
chlorpromazine
treatment,
it
is
easy
to
understand
why
many
British
physicians
felt
that
chlorpromazine
was
simply
unnecessary
to
their
hospital
systems. Given
the
dramatic
differences
in
response
to
the
discovery
of
chlorpromazine
in
the
U.S.
and
Britain,
it
is
useful
to
consider
where
this
disparity
originated
and
what
factors
in
Britain
contributed
to
that
difference.
To
investigate
this
question,
it
is
necessary
to
contextualize
the
state
of
mental
hospitals
in
Britain
at
that
time.
Thomas
Percy
Rees,
the
president
and
medical
superintendent
of
Warlingham
Park
Hospital
in
Surrey,
delivered
an
address
in
1956
that
proclaimed
that
the
best
attribute
of
the
improved
British
mental
hospital
system
was
its
similarity
to
the
moral
treatment
in
the
early
19th
century,
which
was
developed
on
the
basis
of
providing
humane
social
conditions
and
moral
care
in
asylums
as
treatments
for
mental
disorders.22
Rees
stated
that
despite
the
great
progress
in
the
medical
techniques
and
hospital
technology,
“even
today,
the
most
important
single
factor
in
determining
the
patients’
happiness
and
progress
is…
what
was
best
during
the
era
of
‘the
moral
treatment
of
the
insane.’”23
In
Britain,
when
neuroleptics
were
introduced,
mental
hospitals
were
absorbed
into
the
National
Health
Service,
and
therefore,
gained
access
to
improved
standards
of
care.24
The
movement
started
to
take
on
momentum
after
WWII,
when
the
state
began
to
take
an
interest
in
the
welfare
of
individual
patients.
Many
believe
that
this
change
was
reminiscent
of
Pinel’s
dramatic
reforms
in
France.
In
a
historical
assessment,
Anthony
Hordern,
a
consultant
psychiatrist
at
the
Mental
Health
Research
Institution
in
Australia,
and
Max
Hamilton,
a
consultant
psychiatrist
at
the
Stanley
Royd
Hospital
in
England,
noted
that,
on
the
whole,
neuroleptics
were
not
greeted
with
much
enthusiasm,
ϐ ϐ ǡ the
undeniable
improvements
from
other
treatment
alternatives,
along
with
the
conservatism
of
British
medicine
in
returning
to
moral
treatment,
made
the
little
improvements
that
neuroleptics
made
to
British
psychiatry
seem
unimpressive.25
It
was
in
such
a
context
of
improved
healthcare
that
psychiatrists
took
on
the
mindset
of
Lewis,
Vaughan,
and
Rathod,
believing
that
chlorpromazine
did
have
certain
ϐ ǡ ϐ ϐ enough
to
overhaul
the
hospital
system’s
preferred
forms
of
treatment,
such
as
social
and
occupational
therapy. Several
psychiatrists
before
the
First
International
Congress
of
Neuropharmacology
had
articulated
their
belief
in
the
success
of
the
mental
hospital
system
that
was
already
in
place.
In
his
speech,
Lewis
stated
that
the
impact
of
psychotropic
drugs
like
ϐ by
powerful
progress
in
mental
hospital
practices.
After
the
war,
Britain
took
on
a
strenuous
policy
of
rehabilitation
and
established
administrative
facilities
52 such
as
the
Industrial
Resettlement
Unit
(IRU).
Hence,
Lewis
claimed
that
“certainly,
if
we
had
to
choose
be-‐ tween
abandoning
the
use
of
all
the
new
psychotro-‐ pic
drugs
and
abandoning
the
Industrial
Resettlement
Unit…,
there
would
be
no
hesitation
about
the
choice:
the
drugs
would
go.”26
Lewis
warned
against
the
risks
and
side-‐effects
of
chlorpromazine
and
reserpine,
and
concluded
that
until
more
research
could
be
done,
they
were
not
worth
the
fantasy
of
those
who
pinned
great
hopes
on
these
drugs.
Additionally,
at
the
end
of
their
paper,
Hughes
and
Little
predicted
that
“the
undoubted
improvement
in
behaviour
on
long-‐stay
wards
is
very
largely
a
consequence
of
the
introduction
of
enlightened
social
measures.”27 ϐ the
effects
of
chlorpromazine
with
occupational
therapy.
A
study
published
in
the
British
Journal
of
Medical
Psychology
compared
the
effects
of
chlorpromazine,
group
therapy,
and
a
combination
treatment
of
both
on
groups
of
female
schizophrenic
patients.28
It
was
ϐ chlorpromazine
treatment
and
organized
program
of
activity.
There
was
no
single
clinical
feature,
such
as
onset
of
thought
disorder
or
hallucinations,
that
was
more
marked
in
one
group
than
the
other.
Compared
to
the
group
that
was
administered
both
social
therapy
and
chlorpromazine,
the
group
that
was
treated
with
only
chlorpromazine
did
just
as
well.
Because
chlorpromazine
and
social
therapy
were
similar
in
terms
of
patient
improvement,
the
introduction
of
chlorpromazine
was
not
likely
to
stir
much
excitement
among
either
the
British
hospital
staff
or
patients. Another
study
demonstrated
that
drugs,
ǡ ϐ inhibitory
effect
on
patient
progress.29
In
this
study,
the
effects
on
patients
placed
on
two
drug
treatments,
thiopropazate
and
chlorpromazine,
a
placebo,
and
occupational
therapy
were
studied.
It
was
found
that
a
combination
of
drugs
and
occupational
therapy
resulted
ϐ received
placebo
and
no
occupational
therapy.
However,
when
investigating
the
interaction
between
drugs
and
occupational
therapy,
it
was
found
that
drugs
tended
to
exert
an
inhibitory
effect
on
the
improvements
obtained
from
therapy.
Thus,
the
introduction
of
chlorpromazine
had
not
improved
the
results
obtained
by
mental
hospitals
that
practice
moral
treatment
like
those
in
Britain. ϐ chlorpromazine
in
the
U.S.
and
Britain
bring
an
extra
level
of
complexity
to
the
story
of
psychiatry.
Drugs
such
as
chlorpromazine,
after
all,
are
not
necessarily
the
miracle
pills
that
can
save
every
psychiatric
patient.
Every
country
also
responds
differently
to
different
drugs.
In
the
case
of
Britain,
with
its
reformed
health
care
system,
there
was
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
little
enthusiasm
for
chlorpromazine
because
the
drug
simply
did
not
do
much
to
enhance
the
already
effective
moral
treatment
in
British
psychiatric
institutions.
The
chlorpromazine
revolution
that
shook
the
U.S.
did
not
occur
in
Britain.
Instead,
the
British
managed
their
mentally
ill
with
traditional
moral
treatment
techniques
that
were
able
to
successfully
improve
the
psychiatric
hospital
system
for
the
good
of
the
British
physicians,
patients,
and
families.
Endnotes 1
Trevor
Turner,
“The
history
of
deinstitutionalization
and
reinstitutionalization,”
Psychiatry
3
(2004):
1. 2
Aubrey
Lewis,
Neuropsychopharmacology
1,
Ed.
by
T.B.
Bradley,
P.
Deniker,
and
C.
Radouco-‐Thomas,
(Amsterdam:
Elsevier
Co,
1959),
207. 3
Henry
Brill,
“The
impact
of
psychotropic
drugs
on
the
structure,
function,
and
future
of
psychiatric
services
in
hospitals,”
Neuropsychopharmacology
1
(1959):
191. 4
Ibid. 5
Aubrey
Lewis,
Neuropsychopharmacology
1,
Ed.
by
T.B.
Bradley,
P.
Deniker,
and
C.
Radouco-‐Thomas,
(Amsterdam:
Elsevier
Co,
1959),
207. 6
Ibid
208. 7
Ibid. 8
Ibid
209-‐210. 9
Aubrey
Lewis,
Neuropsychopharmacology
1,
Ed.
by
T.B.
Bradley,
P.
Deniker,
and
C.
Radouco-‐Thomas,
(Amsterdam:
Elsevier
Co,
1959),
210. 10
Gerard
Vaughan
and
others,
“Chlorpromazine
in
psychiatry,”
The
Lancet,
May
28,
1955:
1083-‐1087. 11
Gerard
Vaughan
and
others,
“Chlorpromazine
in
psychiatry,”
The
Lancet,
May
28,
1955:
1084. 12
Ibid
1086. 13
Ibid. 14
Ibid. 15
J.S.
Hughes
and
J.
Crawford
Little,
“An
appraisal
of
the
continuing
practice
of
prescribing
tranquilizing
drugs
for
long-‐stay
psychiatric
patients,”
Brit.
J.
Psychiat.,
113
(1967):
867-‐873. 16
Ibid
872. 17
N.H.
Rathod,
“Tranquilisers
and
patients’
environment,”
The
Lancet,
March
22,
1958,
611. 18
N.H.
Rathod,
“Tranquilisers
and
patients’
environment,”
The
Lancet,
March
22,
1958,
612-‐613. 19
Ibid
612. 20
Ibid
613. 21
Thomas
Percy
Rees,
“Back
to
moral
treatment
and
community
care,”
J.
Ment.
Sci,
103
(1957):
303-‐325. 22
Ibid
306. 23
Anthony
Hordern
and
Max
Hamilton.
“Drugs
and
‘moral
treatment,’”
Brit.
J.
Psychiat.,
109
(1963):
501. 24
Ibid
502. 25
Aubrey
Lewis,
Neuropsychopharmacology
1,
Ed.
by
T.B.
Bradley,
P.
Deniker,
and
C.
Radouco-‐Thomas,
(Amsterdam:
Elsevier
Co,
1959),
211. 26
J.S.
Hughes
and
J.
Crawford
Little,
“An
appraisal
of
the
continuing
practice
of
prescribing
tranquilizing
drugs
for
long-‐stay
psychiatric
patients,”
Brit.
J.
Psychiat.,
113
(1967):
872. 27
B.
Cooper,
“Grouping
and
tranquilizers
in
the
chronic
ward,”
Brit.
J.
Med.
Psychol.,
34
(1961):
157-‐162. 28
Anthony
Hordern
and
Max
Hamilton.
“Drugs
and
‘moral
treatment,’”
Brit.
J.
Psychiat.,
109
(1963):
507.
53
Use
or
Abuse?
Political
Applications
of
and
Moral
Responsibility
for
Darwin’s
and
Haber’s
Science By Katherine Mims, Harvard ‘09 “Politics
is
applied
biology.”Ȇ “In
peace
for
mankind,
in
war
for
the
country!”Ȇ Haber In
this
article,
I
examine
the
ever-‐important
philosophical
and
historiographical
question:
“How
are
scientists
held
morally
responsible
for
the
applications
ǫdz ϐ ǡ different
political
ends
toward
which
science
was
put
less
than
a
century
apart:
Charles
Darwin’s
(and
his
followers’)
brand
of
racism
and
Fritz
Haber’s
brand
of
patriotism.
Science
was
used
in
public
and
political
arenas
to
bolster
both
early
eugenic
ideas
about
racial
hierarchy
and
German
Volk
thinking.
These
occurrences
are
politically
related
(the
environment
out
of
which
the
former
grew
and
to
which
it
added
in
many
ways
led
to
the
latter)
and
instructive
concerning
larger
questions
about
the
moral
responsibility
of
scientists
for
the
eventual
uses
Ǥ ϐ ǡ made
Darwin’s
and
Haber’s
moral
culpability
dependent
upon
the
purity
of
their
motivations
and
how
directly
they
were
involved
in
the
social
use
of
their
discoveries,
resulting
in
radically
different
moral
judgments:
Haber
was
guilty;
Darwin
was
not.
Introduction:
Science
as
a
Social
Concept
In
theory,
science
exists
in
a
vacuum.
It
has
historically
been
seen
as
the
search
for
real
and
objective
facts,
as
the
accumulation
of
knowledge
separate
from
the
social
contexts
in
which
it
is
produced
and
used.
Steven
ǡ ǡ ϐ of
science
and
its
historical
study
is
impractical
and
incorrect: For
a
long
time,
historians’
debates
over
the
propriety
of
a
sociological
and
historically
“contextual”
approach
to
science
seemed
to
divide
practitioners
between
those
who
drew
attention
to
what
were
called
“intellectual
factors”—ideas,
concepts,
methods,
evidence—and
those
who
stressed
“social
factors”—forms
of
organization,
ϐ ǡ and
social
uses
or
consequences
of
science.
That
now
seems
to
many
historians,
as
it
does
to
me,
a
rather
silly
demarcation…
If
science
is
to
be
understood
as
historically
situated
and
in
its
collective
aspect
(i.e.
sociologically),
then
that
understanding
should
encompass
all
aspects
of
science,
its
ideas
and
practices
no
less
than
its
institutional
forms
and
social
uses.1
As
Shapin
makes
clear,
science
as
a
social
institution
ϐ ϐ Ǣ ǡ outputs
are
largely
inseparable.
It
is
on
the
latter—the
ϐ Ȅ ǡ but
such
an
analysis
will
necessarily
draw
upon
the
ϐ Ǥ In
particular,
I
will
discuss
the
ultimately
related
political
ends
toward
which
Charles
Darwin,
Fritz
Haber,
ϐ ϐ the
resulting
moral
complexities.
Darwin’s
work
gave
ϐ ϐ language
for
racism.
Haber’s
work
in
ammonia
and
poison
gas
signify
science
acting
in
the
service
of
the
state.
These
trends
culminated
in
the
horrors
of
Nazi
Germany.
Who
is
to
blame?
Historians
imply
that
moral
culpability
depends
on
many
factors,
including
the
purity
of
the
scientists’
motivations
and
how
directly
they
oversaw
the
social
applications
of
their
science.
Darwinian
Evolution
and
Racial
Hierarchy
Evolutionary
thinking
has
always
been
bound
up
with
social
order
and
political
and
religious
ideology,
and
there
were
many
evolutionists
before
Darwin
for
ϐ and
consequence
of
their
work.
George
Louis
Leclerc,
Comte
de
Buffon—who
believed
that
species
are
mutable
and
exist
along
an
unbroken
ladder
of
morphology—is
ϐ Ǥ2
Buffon
was
especially
interested
in
extending
the
popular
and
ϐ ǡ his
early
brand
of
evolutionism.
He
chose,
therefore,
to
write
in
everyday
French
instead
of
Latin,
the
highbrow
language
traditionally
used
in
natural
philosophy.
Janet
Browne
cites
his
ideas
(as
well
as
those
of
Benjamin
Franklin,
Voltaire,
Jean-‐Jacques
Rousseau,
54 and
other
Enlightenment
thinkers)
as
encouraging
an
anti-‐aristocratic
social
and
political
mode
of
progress
ǯ ϐ movements,
the
French
Revolution
of
the
late
eighteenth
century.3
In
reaction
to
the
destabilizing
change
wrought
by
the
French
and
American
Revolutions,
early
nineteenth-‐ century
reactionary
philosophers
again
emphasized
stasis
and
stability,
the
rule
of
law,
and
the
role
of
God
in
ordering
nature
and
society,
which
led
to
a
resurgence
of
the
biblical
concept
now
called
Creationism.
William
Paley’s
Christian
apologetics
and
famous
version
of
the
watchmaker
analogy
are
emblematic
of
this
time.
But,
as
Browne
asserted
in
a
lecture
on
the
history
of
evolutionism,
Britain
soon
began
“undergoing
other
kinds
of
revolutions…
Change
was
in
the
air.”4
Technological
progress
in
industrialization,
transportation,
and
manufacturing
both
created
and
fed
off
an
“on
the
ground
feeling”
that
positive
change—in
essence,
progress— was
possible,
and
science
was
seen
as
an
integral
part
of
furthering
that
progress.5
New
evolutionary
theories
from
natural
philosophers
like
Robert
Chambers,
Alfred
Russell
Wallace,
and
Herbert
Spencer
sprang
up
in
this
social
environment.
Spencer
especially
advocated
an
inborn
thrust
toward
progressive
evolution
that
he
believed
applied
on
both
biological
and
social
levels,
among
others.6
It
is
Darwin,
though,
whose
evolutionary
theory
ϐ and
who
has
therefore
emerged
at
the
vanguard
of
ϐ Ǥ ϐ Ǧ ǡ ϐ ϐ ȋ selection)
that
could
be
used
in
service
of
such
ideologies.
ϐ ǡ Robert
Young
writes,
“[E]volution
[has]
been
invoked
to
support
all
sorts
of
political
and
ideological
positions
from
the
most
reactionary
to
the
most
progressive”,
while
another
historian
characterizes
Darwinism
as
providing
“ideological
comfort”
to
everyone
from
“rugged
individualists,
Marxists,
militarists,
[to]
racists.”7
It
is
the
last
of
these
characterizations—that
of
Darwinism
providing
an
impetus
for
racist
sentiments—on
which
I
focus
here,
along
with
Darwin’s
(and
later
Haber’s)
moral
culpability
or
innocence
for
racist
applications
of
his
theories.8
Although
Darwin
purposely
keeps
silent
on
his
ǡ ϐ his
famous
assertion
that
man
evolved
from
apes
in
The
Descent
of
Man.9
It
is
here
that
Darwin
proposes
that
civilized
(in
essence,
European)
men
are
further
evolved
from
apes
than
are
uncivilized
men.
The
leap
from
this
argument
to
the
racist
notion
that
white
people
are
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
further
evolved
than
are
non-‐white
people
(especially
Ȍ ϐ Ǥ10
In
fact,
Darwin
explicitly
says
so: At
some
future
period,
not
very
distant
as
measured
by
centuries,
the
civilised
races
of
man
will
almost
certainly
exterminate
and
replace
throughout
the
world
the
savage
races.
At
the
same
time
the
anthropomorphous
apes
.
.
.
will
no
doubt
be
exterminated.
The
break
[between
man
and
his
nearest
relatives]
will
then
be
rendered
wider,
for
it
will
intervene
between
man
in
a
more
civilised
state,
as
we
may
hope,
than
the
Caucasian,
and
some
ape
as
low
as
a
baboon,
instead
of
as
at
present
between
the
negro
[sic]
or
Australian
and
the
gorilla.11
Here
Darwin
makes
a
social
and
political
prediction:
that
natural
selection
supports
the
prospect—if
not
necessarily
the
promotion—of
Caucasians
actively
exterminating
“Negroes”
and
aboriginal
Australians
(not
merely
outcompeting
them).
It
is
true,
though,
that
Darwin
himself
was
not
a
particularly
political
man
and
that
where
his
political
ϐ ǡ Ȅ at
least
for
a
member
of
his
contemporary
social
class.
His
vehement
aversion
to
African
slavery
in
Britain
and
the
U.S.
is
particularly
germane
to
this
discussion.
For
example,
in
an
1861
letter
to
his
frequent
correspondent
Asa
Gray
(a
famed
Harvard
botanist),
Darwin
writes
of
the
American
Civil
War, N.
America
does
not
do
England
justice:
I
have
not
seen
or
heard
of
a
soul
who
is
not
with
the
North.
Some
few,
&
I
am
one,
even
wish
to
God,
though
at
the
loss
of
millions
of
lives,
that
the
North
would
proclaim
a
crusade
against
Slavery.
In
the
long
run,
a
million
horrid
deaths
would
be
amply
repaid
in
the
cause
of
humanity.
What
wonderful
times
we
live
in…Great
God
how
I
shd
like
to
see
that
greatest
curse
on
Earth,
Slavery,
abolished.12
Darwin
was
so
passionate
in
his
abolitionism,
which
seems
to
have
grown
from
the
repulsion
he
felt
toward
the
maltreatment
of
slaves
he
saw
while
researching
abroad,13
that
he
was
even
frustrated
by
what
he
saw
as
President
Lincoln’s
too
tempered
attack
on
Confederate
slavery.
We
see
that
although
Darwin
believed
Europeans
were
racially,
intellectually,
and
culturally
superior
to
other
people,
he
advocated
against
overt
political
racism—or
slavery,
at
least.
Nevertheless,
his
brand
of
evolutionism
was
quickly
and
lustily
taken
up
by
racists
55 ĥ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Œ—•–‹Ď?‹…ƒ–‹‘Â? ˆ‘” †‹•…”‹Â?‹Â?ƒ–‘”› ’”ƒ…–‹…‡•Ǥ notion
 
  that
 
  an
 
  organism’s
 
  embryonic
 
  development
 
  (its
 
  As
 
  Stephen
 
  Jay
 
  Gould
 
  writes,
 
  “Biological
 
  arguments
 
  for
 
  ‘Â?–‘‰‡Â?Â›ČŒ Â?‹””‘”• ‹–• •’‡…‹Ď?‹… ‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘Â?ƒ”› Š‹•–‘”› ȋ‹–• racism
 
 may
 
 have
 
 been
 
 common
 
 before
 
 1859
 
 [the
 
 year
 
 the
 
  phylogeny).18
 
 
 
  ”‹‰‹Â? ™ƒ• Ď?‹”•– ’—„Ž‹•Š‡†Č?ÇĄ „—– –Š‡› ‹Â?…”‡ƒ•‡† „› ‘”†‡”• Haeckel’s
 
  overtly
 
  racist
 
  brand
 
  of
 
  Darwinism
 
  of
 
  magnitude
 
  following
 
  the
 
  acceptance
 
  of
 
  [Darwinian]
 
  encouraged
 
  the
 
  late
 
  nineteenth-Ââ€?
 
  and
 
  early
 
  twentieth-Ââ€? evolutionary
 
  theory.�14
 
 
 
 
 
  Moreover,
 
  •’‡…‹Ď?‹… †‡–ƒ‹Ž• ‘ˆ ƒ”™‹Â?‹ƒÂ? Â?ƒ–—”ƒŽ selection
 
 (as
 
 opposed
 
 to
 
 only
 
 general
 
  themes
 
 common
 
 to
 
 other
 
 evolutionary
 
  schemes
 
  (Malthusian
 
  ideas,
 
  social
 
  progress
 
  as
 
  accompanying
 
  physical
 
  progress,
 
  etc.)
 
  were
 
  adopted
 
  as
 
  •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… ”ƒ–‹‘Â?ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘Â?• ˆ‘” ”ƒ…‹ƒŽ politics;
 
  I
 
  here
 
  focus
 
  on
 
  the
 
  above
 
  discussed
 
 case
 
 of
 
 Darwin’s
 
 belief
 
 that
 
  blacks
 
 and
 
 other
 
 “uncivilized�
 
 people
 
  represent
 
  lower
 
  evolutionary
 
  life
 
  forms
 
 than
 
 Caucasians.
 
  The
 
  German
 
  scientist
 
  Ernst
 
  Haeckel
 
  soon
 
  emerged
 
  as
 
  one
 
  of
 
  Darwin’s
 
  most
 
  vociferous
 
  supporters
 
 and
 
 the
 
 chief
 
 popularizer
 
  of
 
  Darwinian
 
  theories
 
  in
 
  mainland
 
  Europe,
 
  earning
 
  him
 
  the
 
  nicknames
 
  “Darwin’s
 
 Bulldog
 
 on
 
 the
 
 Continent�
 
  and
 
  “The
 
  Huxley
 
  of
 
  Germanyâ€?.15-Ââ€?16
 
  Haeckel
 
 was
 
 an
 
 unabashed
 
 racist
 
 who
 
  •‘—‰Š– –‘ Ž‡‰‹–‹Â?ƒ–‡ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹…ƒŽŽ› ƒ racist
 
  political
 
  agenda
 
  that
 
  proved
 
  a
 
  forerunner
 
  to
 
  eugenics.
 
 
 
  As
 
  this
 
  article’s
 
 opening
 
 quote—used
 
 later
 
 as
 
  a
 
 Nazi
 
 propaganda
 
 slogan—suggests,
 
  Haeckel
 
  is
 
  famous
 
  for
 
  his
 
  equation
 
  of
 
  politics
 
  with
 
  “applied
 
  biology�.
 
 
 
  He
 
  especially
 
  seized
 
  upon
 
  Darwin’s
 
  postulate
 
 that
 
 humans
 
 evolved
 
 from
 
  apes
 
  and
 
  spent
 
  considerable
 
  time
 
  searching
 
  for
 
  (and
 
  fraudulently
 
  claiming
 
  the
 
  discovery
 
  of)
 
  “the
 
  missing
 
  link�.
 
 
 
  Toward
 
  that
 
  end,
 
  Haeckel
 
  formed
 
  his
 
  “Anthropogenie,�
 
  using
 
  Darwinian
 
  claims
 
  about
 
  the
 
  evolutionary
 
  status
 
  of
 
  Africans
 
  as
 
  direct
 
  inspiration.17
 
 
 
  (See
 
  Figure
 
  1.)
 
 
 
  Furthermore,
 
  the
 
  missing
 
  link,
 
  or
 
  “Ape-Ââ€?Manâ€?
 
  (Anthropoiden),
 
  which
 
  Haeckel
 
  explicitly
 
  likened
 
  to
 
  blacks,
 
  is
 
  presented
 
  below
 
  not
 
  only
 
  man
 
  ‹‰—”‡ ͡ǣ ”Â?•– ƒ‡…Â?‡Žǥ Â?–Š”‘’‘‰‡Â?‹‡ ‘†‡” Â?–™‹…Â?‡Ž—Â?‰•‰‡•…Š‹…Š–‡ †‡• Â?‡Â?•…Š‡Â? Č‹ Â‡Â‹Â’ÂœÂ‹Â‰ÇŁ Ǥ Â?‰‡ŽÂ?ƒÂ?Â?ÇĄ ÍˇÍžÍ˝Í˝ČŒÇĄ –ƒ„Ǥ ÂšÂ‹Â˜ÇĄ ˆƒ…‹Â?‰ ’ƒ‰‡ ͟͝͡Ǥ (Menschen)
 
  but
 
  also
 
  the
 
  gorilla,
 
  the
 
  orangutan,
 
  and
 
  some
 
  other
 
  primates
 
  in
 
  his
 
  “Pedigree
 
  of
 
  Man�.
 
 
 
  (See
 
  Figure
 
  2.)
 
 
 
  Haeckel
 
  combined
 
  these
 
  exaggerations
 
  century
 
  development
 
  of
 
  eugenics,
 
  arguably
 
  history’s
 
  of
 
  Darwinian
 
  concepts
 
  with
 
  his
 
  own
 
  brainchild,
 
  the
 
  most
 
  widely
 
  and
 
  politically
 
  institutionalized
 
  form
 
  of
 
  now
 
  largely
 
  disproven
 
  “recapitulation
 
  theory�—the
 
  •‘…‹ƒŽ ƒ”™‹Â?‹•Â? ƒÂ?† •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… ”ƒ…‹•Â?Ǥ ˆ—ŽŽ‡” ƒ……‘—Â?–
56 of
 
  the
 
  relationship
 
  between
 
  knowledge
 
  and
 
  its
 
  uses
 
  as
 
  incarnated
 
  in
 
  eugenics
 
  falls
 
  beyond
 
  the
 
  scope
 
  of
 
  this
 
  article;
 
  instead,
 
  the
 
  following
 
  two
 
  quotes
 
  (circa
 
  the
 
 
1920s) from highly respected American scientists typify how eugenicists relied on the distinctly Darwinian notion that non-Europeans, especially Africans, constitute lesser-evolved races:
maintain
 
  the
 
  segregation
 
  of
 
  the
 
  races,
 
  for
 
  the
 
 longer
 
 this
 
 is
 
 maintained
 
 the
 
 greater
 
  the
 
  preponderance
 
 of
 
 the
 
 white
 
 race
 
 will
 
 be‌19 The
 
 Negroid
 
 stock
 
 is
 
 even
 
 more
 
 ancient
 
 than
 
  the
 
  Caucasian
 
  and
 
  Mongolians,
 
  as
 
  may
 
  be
 
  proved
 
  by
 
  an
 
  examination
 
  not
 
  only
 
  of
 
  the
 
  brain,
 
 of
 
 the
 
 hair,
 
 of
 
 the
 
 bodily
 
 characteristics
 
  .
 
 .
 
  .
 
 but
 
  of
 
  the
 
  instincts,
 
  the
 
  intelligence.
 
 The
 
  standard
 
  of
 
  intelligence
 
  of
 
  the
 
  average
 
  adult
 
  Negro
 
  is
 
  similar
 
  to
 
  that
 
  of
 
  the
 
  eleven-Ââ€?year-Ââ€? old-Ââ€?youth
 
  of
 
  the
 
  species
 
  Homo
 
  Sapiens
 
  [sic].20 Eugenics
 
 would
 
 not
 
 fade
 
 as
 
 an
 
 overtly
 
 promoted
 
 “science�
 
  until
 
 the
 
 Holocaust
 
 exposed
 
 the
 
 moral
 
 depravity
 
 inherent
 
  in
 
 pursuing
 
 eugenic
 
 practices
 
 to
 
 the
 
 extreme.21
Fritz
 
 Haber
 
 and
 
 Scientized
 
  Nationalism
 
  In
 
 1898,
 
 William
 
 Crookes,
 
 president
 
 of
 
 the
 
 British
 
  Association
 
  for
 
  the
 
  Advancement
 
  of
 
  Science,
 
  painted
 
  a
 
  literal
 
  and
 
  racist
 
  portrait
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Darwinian
 
  struggle
 
  for
 
  existence.
 
 
 
 The
 
 focal
 
 point
 
 was
 
 an
 
 arcane
 
 chemistry
 
 issue
 
  ™‹–Š ƒŽ–Š—•‹ƒÂ? ƒÂ?†ǥ –‘ ”‘‘Â?‡•ǥ ƒ’‘…ƒŽ›’–‹… •‹‰Â?‹Ď?‹…ƒÂ?…‡ǣ –Š‡ •›Â?–Š‡•‹• ‘ˆ Ď?‹š‡† Â?‹–”‘‰‡Â?ÇĄ ™Š‹…Šǥ ĥ Â?ƒ–—”ƒŽ •—’’Ž‹‡• dwindled
 
 precipitously,
 
 became
 
 necessary
 
 for
 
 continued
 
  wheat
 
  growth
 
  and,
 
  hence,
 
  bread
 
  production.
 
 
 
  Crookes
 
  framed
 
  the
 
  issue
 
  as
 
  a
 
  matter
 
  of
 
  critical
 
  importance
 
  for
 
  the
 
 maintenance
 
 of
 
 white
 
 racial
 
 superiority,
 
 delivering
 
 an
 
  imperialistic
 
  manifesto.
 
 
 
  Unless
 
  a
 
  chemist
 
  could
 
  convert
 
  nitrogen
 
  to
 
  useful
 
  forms,
 
  “Caucasian
 
  bread-Ââ€?eaters,â€?
 
  claimed
 
 Crookes,
 
 would
 
 starve.22
 
  Š‡ Ď?‹šƒ–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ Â?‹–”‘‰‡Â? ‹• ƒ “—‡•–‹‘Â? ‘ˆ –Š‡ not-Ââ€?far-Ââ€?distant
 
  future.
 
 
 
  Unless
 
  we
 
  can
 
  class
 
  it
 
  among
 
  certainties
 
  to
 
  come,
 
  the
 
  great
 
  Caucasian
 
 race
 
 will
 
 seek
 
 to
 
 be
 
 foremost
 
 in
 
 the
 
  world,
 
 and
 
 will
 
 be
 
 squeezed
 
 out
 
 of
 
 existence
 
  by
 
 races
 
 to
 
 whom
 
 wheaten
 
 bread
 
 is
 
 not
 
 the
 
  stuff
 
 of
 
 life.23 ‹‰—”‡ ͸ǣ ”Â?•– ƒ‡…Â?‡Žǥ Â?–Š”‘’‘‰‡Â?‹‡ ‘†‡” Â?–™‹…Â?‡Ž—Â?‰•‰‡•…Š‹…Š–‡ †‡• Â?‡Â?•…Š‡Â? Č‹ Â‡Â‹Â’ÂœÂ‹Â‰ÇŁ Ǥ Â?‰‡ŽÂ?ƒÂ?Â?ÇĄ ÍˇÍžÍ˝Í˝ČŒÇĄ –ƒ„Ǥ ÂšÂ˜ÇĄ ˆƒ…‹Â?‰ ’ƒ‰‡ ͝͸͟.
 
 
Comparison
 
  of
 
  any
 
  modern
 
  race
 
  with
 
  the
 
  Neanderthal
 
 or
 
 Heidelberg
 
 types
 
 shows
 
 that
 
  all
 
  have
 
  changed,
 
  but
 
  probably
 
  the
 
  negroid
 
  [sic]
 
 races
 
 more
 
 closely
 
 resemble
 
 the
 
 original
 
  stock
 
 than
 
 the
 
 white
 
 or
 
 yellow
 
 races‌
 
 Every
 
  consideration
 
 should
 
 lead
 
 those
 
 who
 
 believe
 
  in
 
  the
 
  superiority
 
  of
 
  the
 
  white
 
  race
 
  to
 
  strive
 
  to
 
  preserve
 
  its
 
  purity
 
  and
 
  to
 
  establish
 
  and
 
 
Synthesis,
 
 Issue
 
 1,
 
 May
 
 2009
Just
 
  as
 
  Darwin’s
 
  motivations
 
  inextricably
 
  grew
 
  from
 
  –Š‡ Žƒ”‰‡” ’‘Ž‹–‹…ƒŽ ƒÂ?† •‘…‹ƒŽ –”‡Â?† –‘™ƒ”† •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… naturalism
 
  that
 
  formed
 
  part
 
  of
 
  his
 
  cultural
 
  milieu,24
 
  so
 
  did
 
  the
 
  quest
 
  for
 
  synthetic
 
  nitrogen
 
  emerge
 
  from
 
  and
 
  contribute
 
 to
 
 the
 
 larger
 
 social
 
 context
 
 of
 
 its
 
 time:
 
 
 
 “It
 
 mixed
 
  together
 
  intoxicating
 
  ingredients
 
  of
 
  its
 
  era:
 
 
 
  imperial
 
  arrogance,
 
 apocalyptic
 
 visions,
 
 and
 
 technological
 
 faith.�25
 
  Furthermore,
 
  in
 
  calling
 
  for
 
  race-Ââ€?based,
 
  self-Ââ€?directed
 
  …‘Â?–”‘Ž ‘ˆ ‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘Â?ǯ• •‡Ž‡…–‹˜‡ ’”‡••—”‡•ǥ –Š‡ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… pursuit
 
  of
 
  nitrogen
 
  represents
 
  an
 
  early
 
  promotion
 
  of
 
  positive
 
  eugenics.26
 
 
 
  Early
 
  eugenicists
 
  had
 
  seized
 
  upon
 
  Darwin’s
 
 and
 
 others’
 
 predictions
 
 that
 
 white
 
 men
 
 would
 
 
57 come
to
dominate
or
even
exterminate
less
civilized
peoples,
so
any
phenomenon
threatening
to
produce
the
opposite,
such
as
the
lack
of
nitrogen
in
this
case,
begged
for
eugenic
correction. Germany,
at
the
time
the
European
leader
in
industrial
chemistry,
ardently
responded
to
Crookes’s
call
to
arms,
with
many
prominent
scientists—chief
among
them
Walther
Nernst
and
Fritz
Haber—racing
ǡ ϐ Ǥ ǡ ϐ on
a
large
and
reliable
scale
in
1909.
In
Crooke’s
message
and
Haber’s
discovery,
we
see
a
political
ϐ Ǥ science
was
established
to
serve
a
prescribed
political
application,
not
the
other
way
around
as
was
the
case
with
Darwinism.
In
his
acceptance
speech
for
the
1918
Nobel
Prize
(awarded
in
1920),
Haber
himself
admits
to
a
nationalistic,
application-‐based
inspiration
for
his
ammonia
research:
A
narrow
professional
interest
in
the
preparation
of
ammonia
from
the
elements
was
based
on
the
achievement
of
a
simple
result
by
means
of
special
equipment.
A
more
widespread
interest
was
due
to
the
fact
that
the
synthesis
of
ammonia
from
its
elements,
if
carried
out
on
a
large
scale,
would
be
a
useful,
at
present
perhaps
the
most
useful,
way
of
satisfying
important
national
economic
needs.27
That
Haber
in
1920,
shortly
after
the
close
of
World
War
I,
felt
science
should
act
in
service
of
the
nation
was
no
doubt
a
mark
of
the
rise
of
Volk
thinking,
to
which
Haber
had
become
a
loyal
devotee.
At
the
outset
of
the
war
in
1914,
Kaiser
Wilhelm
II
announced,
“I
see
no
more
parties
in
my
Volk.
Among
us
there
are
only
Germans…
All
that
matters
now
is
that
we
stand
together
like
brothers,
and
then
God
will
help
the
German
sword
to
victory.”28
These
crystallized
sentiments,
later
dubbed
the
“Spirit
of
1914”,
spawned
a
zealous
nationalism
that
obscured
all
else:
The
spirit
is
the
distilled
essence
of
patriotism…
It
has
erupted
at
every
corner
of
the
world,
especially
at
times
of
war.
It
exalts
the
claims
of
the
nation
over
all
other
human
ties.
As
one
German
speaker
put
it
in
1914:
“The
Volk
has
risen
up
as
the
only
thing
which
has
value
and
will
last.
Over
all
individual
fates
stands
that
which
we
feel
as
the
highest
reality:
the
experience
of
belonging
together.”29
Science
itself
was
made
to
kneel
at
the
throne
of
Germany
and
her
Volk.
It
is
this
ideology,
no
doubt,
that
prompted
Haber’s
declaration
about
the
nature
of
ϐ ǡ Dz ǡ for
the
country!”30
No
longer
was
science
envisioned
as
a
search
for
general
or
objective
knowledge;
in
Haber
we
see
the
explicit
conception
of
science
as
a
tool
of
the
state,
meant
primarily
to
enlarge
her
economic
and
military
power
via
immediate
technological
application.
This
outlook
soon
occasioned
Haber’s
dramatic
metamorphosis
from
laboratory
chemist
to
ϐ ϐ ǣ for
the
express
purpose
of
killing
Allied
soldiers
on
WWI
ϐ Ǥ ǡ ǡ ǯ ϐ chemical
weapon,
which
eventually
killed
or
injured
at
least
650,000
men
during
WWI.31
Conclusion:
Nazi
Uses
of
Science
and
Moral
Responsibilities
of
Scientists
Darwin’s
contribution
to
the
Holocaust
was
conceptual,
whereas
Haber’s
was
functional;
both,
it
must
be
stressed,
were
unwitting.
Under
Adolf
Hitler,
the
combination
of
social
Darwinism
as
incarnated
in
ϐ by
German
Volk
nationalism
produced
a
fatal
cocktail
of
racism
and
deadly
force,
resulting
in
the
massacre
of
millions.
The
Third
Reich’s
eugenic
“Final
Solution”
for
the
Jews
and
other
minority
populations
represents
scientized
racist
politics
taken
to
their
wickedest
and
most
chilling
extreme:
as
one
contemporary
commentator
writes, [Hitler]
consciously
sought
to
make
the
practice
of
Germany
conform
to
the
theory
of
evolution…
[He]
is
an
evolutionist,
not
only
in
theory,
but,
as
millions
know
to
their
cost,
in
the
rigor
of
its
practice.
For
him,
the
national
“front”
of
Europe
is
also
the
evolutionary
“front;”
he
regards
himself,
and
is
regarded,
as
the
incarnation
of
the
will
of
Germany,
the
purpose
of
that
will
being
to
guide
the
evolutionary
destiny
of
its
people.32
In
addition
to
speaking
of
evolution
(Entwicklung33)
repeatedly
in
Mein
Kampf,34
Hitler
consciously
adopts
evolutionary
language
in
his
invocation
of
Haeckel’s
and
previously
Darwin’s
concept
of
non-‐white
races
as
being
more
closely
related
to
apes,
declaring
mixed
race
children
“deformities
half
man
and
half
ape.”35
Haber’s
58 influence
on
the
atrocities
of
the
Holocaust—the
ultimate
expression
of
Volk
ideology—was
more
direct.
This
article
has
presented
evidence
supporting
the
During
the
interwar
peacetime,
Haber
redirected
first
of
these
assertions
as
it
relates
to
politics
and
race.
his
work
in
poison
gases
toward
other
profitable
Darwin
seems
to
have
been,
if
anything,
less
racist
industrial
uses:
in
1920,
he
developed
Zyklon
B,
a
than
many
of
his
compatriots
and
did
not
personally
cyanide-‐based
chemical
insecticide
that
Nazis
later
attempt
to
apply
his
theory
of
natural
selection
to
any
released
as
the
killing
agent
inside
the
concentration
overtly
political
cause;
these
should
and,
it
seems,
do
camps’
gas
chambers.
In
a
tragically
ironic
twist,
count
toward
his
exculpation
for
the
later
moral
ills
of
Haber,
a
Jew,
was
forced
to
leave
Germany
because
of
eugenics
and
other
uses
to
which
his
work
was
put.
In
Nazi
persecution
in
1933,
and
many
members
of
his
addition,
I
would
argue
that
Darwin
did
not
choose— family
died
in
camps.
and
would
anyhow
have
probably
been
largely
unable
Is
it
a
coincidence
that
Darwin’s
and
Haber’s
due
to
his
relative
timidity
and
advancing
age—to
scientific
discoveries
each
played
major
roles
in
oversee
broad
social
and
political
applications
respectively
advancing
and
executing
the
Nazi
political
of
his
theories,
even
though
prior
to
his
death
he
program
culminating
in
World
understood
that
men
such
as
War
II?
Not
entirely.
Both,
as
Ernest
Haeckel
and
Francis
we
have
seen,
emerged
from
“We
must
admit
that
Darwin
Galton
(the
“father
of
eugenics”
and
contributed
to
the
racist
cannot
be
found
wholly
innocent
and
Darwin’s
own
cousin)
were
political
and
social
environment
promoting
his
conclusions
for
for
the
later
uses
of
his
theories:
their
own
(ultimately
racist)
of
the
late
nineteenth
and
early
twentieth
centuries,
the
as
we
have
seen,
for
example,
ends.
Moreover,
Darwin
died
in
same
dynamic
environment
The
Descent
of
Man
does
include
1882,
long
before
the
full
rise
of
that
bred
the
atrocities
of
the
implicitly
racist
undertones.
eugenics
or
the
gruesomeness
of
Nazi
regime.
Nevertheless,
the
the
Holocaust
could
have
been
history
of
science
has
seen
fit
to
That
such
suggestions
would
foreseen.
Haeckel,
Galton,
and
exonerate
Darwin
from
moral
be
co-opted
by
other
factions
other
social
Darwinists
have
culpability
for
eugenic
evils
for
racist
uses
should
have
been
instead
borne
the
brunt
of
moral
while
roundly
condemning
for
controversial
rather
easily
imaginable
to
approbation
Haber
for
promoting
uses
of
evolutionary
theory. Darwin.” scientized
nationalism
and
Shapin
and
Barnes,
advancing
chemical
weaponry.
though,
cast
suspicion
on
the
Differences
in
both
the
eventual
propriety
of
such
“Darwin-‐ applications
of
Darwin’s
and
Haber’s
work
and
the
glossing.”
It
is
important
not
to
create
Whiggish,
moral
motivations
for
their
research
account,
at
least
revisionist
history
merely
because
we
now
revere
in
part,
for
this
divergent
historical
treatment.
Darwin’s
scientific
genius.
We
must
admit
that
Are
scientists
responsible
for
the
uses
to
Darwin
cannot
be
found
wholly
innocent
for
the
later
which
their
discoveries
are
ultimately
put?
In
uses
of
his
theories:
for
example,
The
Descent
of
Man
explicitly
asking
“Was
Darwin
guilty?”
Shapin
and
does
include
implicitly
racist
undertones.
That
such
Barnes
identify
three
assertions
on
which
defenders
suggestions
would
be
co-‐opted
by
other
factions
for
of
Darwin’s
morality
have
based
their
conclusions:
racist
uses
should
have
been
rather
easily
imaginable
to
Darwin.
Even
more
damning,
perhaps,
is
the
fact
that
The
first
is
that
of
internal
purity:
Darwin’s
not
only
did
Darwin
know
about
Haeckel’s
adoption
of
intentions
and
motives
in
writing
the
his
theories,
but
he
actually
praises
Haeckel’s
work
on
Origin
were
above
reproach,
and
his
precisely
the
point
at
issue
here
in
Descent
of
Man:
“In
personal
beliefs
in
1859
were
innocent
of
attempting
to
trace
the
genealogy
of
the
Mammalia,
“ideological”
taint.
The
second
is
purity
and
therefore
of
man,
lower
down
in
the
series,
we
of
ancestry:
“influences”
upon
the
Origin
become
involved
in
greater
and
greater
obscurity.
He
were
entirely
wholesome
and
reputable… who
wishes
to
see
what
ingenuity
and
knowledge
can
The
third
assertion
is
purity
of
germ-‐ effect,
may
consult
Prof.
Häckel’s
[sic]
works.”37
plasm:
nothing
untoward
could
properly
Haber’s
responsibility
for
the
applications
be
deduced
from
the
theory
in
the
Origin;
of
his
discoveries
is
impossible
to
deny,
though;
the
truth
does
not
blend
with
error;
insofar
as
history
of
science
thus
paints
him
as
a
villain.
Between
truth
was
used
to
justify
social
Darwinism,
Genius
and
Genocide,
for
example,
is
the
thinly-‐veiled
36 it
was
misused.
moralizing
title
of
Daniel
Charles’s
recent
Haber
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
59 biography:
 
 
 
  blood,
 
  we
 
  are
 
  to
 
  understand,
 
  was
 
  on
 
  Hab-Ââ€? er’s
 
  hands.
 
 
 
  Haber’s
 
  intentions
 
  were
 
  not
 
  “pure�
 
  from
 
  ideological
 
  leanings
 
  as
 
  many
 
  assert
 
  Darwin’s
 
  were.
 
 
 
  Rather,
 
 his
 
 motivations
 
 were
 
 from
 
 the
 
 start
 
 more
 
 po-Ââ€? litical
 
  and
 
  nationalistic
 
  than
 
  they
 
  were
 
  “scientific�;
 
  more
 
  application-Ââ€?
 
  than
 
  knowledge-Ââ€?based.
 
 
 
  Like
 
  no
 
  previous
 
  modern
 
  scientist,
 
  Haber
 
  assumed
 
  a
 
  direct
 
  role
 
  in
 
  the
 
  political
 
  uses
 
  of
 
  his
 
  research,
 
  personally
 
  delivering
 
 and
 
 overseeing
 
 the
 
 release
 
 of
 
 poison
 
 gas
 
 on
 
  the
 
  WWI
 
  battlefield
 
  as
 
  a
 
  German
 
  military
 
  officer.
 
 
 
  To
 
  Haber,
 
  science
 
  was
 
  studied
 
  not
 
  for
 
  any
 
  purely
 
  edifica-Ââ€? tory
 
 benefit
 
 to
 
 mankind
 
 but
 
 for
 
 the
 
 might
 
 of
 
 Germany;
 
  many
 
  see
 
  this
 
  as
 
  an
 
  unforgiveable
 
  perversion
 
  of
 
  the
 
  noble
 
  aims
 
  of
 
  “pure�
 
  science.
 
 
 
  Perhaps
 
  nothing
 
  better
 
  expresses
 
  the
 
  moral
 
  outrage
 
  felt
 
  toward
 
  the
 
  “father
 
  of
 
  chemical
 
  warfare�
 
  than
 
  Wilfred
 
  Owen’s
 
  famously
 
  graphic
 
 1918
 
 poem,
 
 “Dulce
 
 et
 
 Decorum
 
 Est�,
 
 on
 
 the
 
 ef-Ââ€? fects
 
 of
 
 poison
 
 gas
 
 during
 
 the
 
 First
 
 World
 
 War:
Gas!
 
 
 
 GAS!
 
 
 
 Quick
 
 boys!
 
 –
 
 An
 
 ecstasy
 
 of
 
 fumbling, Fitting
 
 the
 
 clumsy
 
 helmets
 
 just
 
 in
 
 time; But
 
 someone
 
 still
 
 was
 
 yelling
 
 out
 
 and
 
 stumbling, And
 
 flound’ring
 
 like
 
 a
 
 man
 
 in
 
 fire
 
 or
 
 lime‌ Dim,
 
  through
 
  the
 
  misty
 
  panes
 
  and
 
  thick
 
  green
 
  light, As
 
 under
 
 a
 
 green
 
 sea,
 
 I
 
 saw
 
 him
 
 drowning. In
 
 all
 
 my
 
 dreams,
 
 before
 
 my
 
 helpless
 
 sight, He
 
 plunges
 
 at
 
 me,
 
 guttering,
 
 choking,
 
 drowning. If
 
 in
 
 some
 
 smothering
 
 dreams
 
 you
 
 too
 
 could
 
 pace Behind
 
 the
 
 wagon
 
 that
 
 we
 
 flung
 
 him
 
 in, And
 
 watch
 
 the
 
 white
 
 eyes
 
 writhing
 
 in
 
 his
 
 face, His
 
 hanging
 
 face,
 
 like
 
 a
 
 devil’s
 
 sick
 
 of
 
 sin; Come
 
 gargling
 
 from
 
 the
 
 froth-Âcorrupted
 
 lungs, Obscene
 
 as
 
 cancer,
 
 bitter
 
 as
 
 the
 
 cud Of
 
 vile,
 
 incurable
 
 sores
 
 on
 
 innocent
 
 tongues,
 
 – My
 
 friend,
 
 you
 
 would
 
 not
 
 tell
 
 with
 
 such
 
 high
 
 zest Š‡ ‘Ž† ‹‡ǣ —Ž…‡ ‡– †‡…‘”—� ‡•– Pro
 
 patria
 
 mori.
 
  [It
 
 is
 
 sweet
 
 and
 
 proper
 
 to
 
 die
 
 for
 
 one’s
 
 country.]38 Finally,
 
  Haber’s
 
  fate
 
  and
 
  the
 
  emergence
 
  of
 
  science
 
  aimed
 
  directly
 
  at
 
  future
 
  application
 
  (especially
 
  for
 
  the
 
  state)
 
  prefigured—or
 
  in
 
  fact
 
  signifies—the
 
  rise
 
  of
 
  the
 
  military-Ââ€?industrial
 
  complex
 
  and
 
  the
 
  moral
 
  complexities
 
  surrounding
 
  scientists’
 
  contributions
 
  to
 
  military
 
  technology
 
  (particularly
 
  later
 
  nuclear
 
  weapons
 
 research
 
 in
 
 Germany
 
 and
 
 the
 
 United
 
 States).
 
  In
 
  this
 
  way,
 
  it
 
  illuminates
 
  many
 
  of
 
  the
 
  major
 
  themes
 
  approached
 
  by
 
  historians
 
  and
 
  ethicists
 
  of
 
  science
 
  today.
 
 
 
  This
 
  comparative
 
  analysis
 
  of
 
  the
 
  political
 
  uses
 
 
of
 
  Darwin’s
 
  and
 
  Haber’s
 
  discoveries
 
  has
 
  reaffirmed
 
  Shapin’s
 
  contention
 
  that
 
  science
 
  and
 
  society,
 
  as
 
  well
 
  as
 
  the
 
  influences
 
  and
 
  applications
 
  of
 
  science,
 
  are
 
  ultimately
 
  inseparable.
 
 
 
  Science
 
  is
 
  social.
 
 
 
  As
 
  for
 
  the
 
  moral
 
  responsibility
 
  scientists
 
  bear
 
  for
 
  later
 
  uses
 
  of
 
  their
 
  research,
 
  the
 
  historical
 
  treatment
 
  of
 
  Darwin
 
  and
 
  Haber
 
  indicates
 
  that,
 
  well,
 
  it
 
  depends—in
 
  these
 
  cases,
 
  on
 
  the
 
  purity
 
  of
 
  the
 
  scientist’s
 
  motivations
 
  and
 
  the
 
  directness
 
  of
 
  his
 
  involvement
 
  in
 
  the
 
  later
 
  uses
 
  of
 
  his
 
  theories.
 
 
 
  Given
 
  this
 
  tendency,
 
  though
 
  both
 
  Darwin
 
 and
 
 Haber
 
 seem
 
 like
 
 they
 
 should
 
 shoulder
 
 at
 
  least
 
 some
 
 of
 
 the
 
 blame
 
 for
 
 the
 
 political
 
 applications
 
  of
 
  their
 
  science—its
 
  use
 
  or
 
  abuse—history
 
  has
 
  rendered
 
 divergent
 
 verdicts.
 
 
 
 Darwin,
 
 though
 
 perhaps
 
  not
 
  entirely
 
  innocent,
 
  emerges
 
  as
 
  not
 
  guilty.
 
 
 
  Haber,
 
  however,
 
 has
 
 been
 
 tried
 
 and
 
 convicted.
Endnotes: 1
 
 
 
 Steven
 
 Shapin,
 
  Š‡ …‹‡Â?–‹ϔ‹… ‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘Â?
 
 (Chicago:
 
 University
 
 of
 
  Chicago
 
 Press,
 
 1996),
 
 9.
 
 Emphasis
 
 added. 2
 
 
 
  Indeed,
 
  in
 
  the
 
  foreword
 
  to
 
  the
 
  sixth
 
  edition
 
  of
 
  the
 
  Origin
 
  of
 
  SpeciesÇĄ ƒ”™‹Â? …”‡†‹–• —ˆˆ‘Â? ĥ Dz–Š‡ Ď?‹”•– ƒ—–Š‘” ™Š‘ ‹Â? Â?‘†‡”Â? –‹Â?‡• Šƒ• –”‡ƒ–‡† Č?‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘Â?Č? ‹Â? ƒ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… •’‹”‹–dz Č‹Č?ͳͺ͡͝Č? ͳͺ͚ʹǥ
 
 9). 3
 
 
 
 Janet
 
 Browne,
 
 “Knowing
 
 through
 
 Order,�
 
 lecture
 
 for
 
  History
 
 of
 
 Science
 
 100:
 
 Knowing
 
 the
 
 World
 
 (Cambridge,
 
 MA:
 
 Harvard
 
  University,
 
 October
 
 28,
 
 2008). 4
 
 
 
 Janet
 
 Browne,
 
 “Man’s
 
 Place
 
 in
 
 Nature,�
 
 lecture
 
 for
 
 History
 
  of
 
 Science
 
 100:
 
 Knowing
 
 the
 
 World
 
 (Cambridge,
 
 MA:
 
 November
 
 4,
 
  2008). 5
 
 
 
 Ibid. 6
 
 
 
 Herbert
 
 Spencer,
 
 “Progress:
 
 Its
 
 Law
 
 and
 
 Cause�
 
 [1857]
 
 in
 
  Herbert
 
 Spencer
 
 on
 
 Social
 
 Evolution,
 
 ed.
 
 J.
 
 D.
 
 Peel,
 
 253-Ââ€?257
 
 (Chicago:
 
  University
 
 of
 
 Chicago
 
 Press,
 
 1972).
 
  7
 
 
 
 Both
 
 quoted
 
 in
 
 Steven
 
 Shapin
 
 and
 
 Barry
 
 Barnes,
 
 “Darwin
 
  and
 
 Social
 
 Darwinism:
 
 Purity
 
 and
 
 History,�
 
 in
 
  ƒ–—”ƒŽ ”†‡”ǣ ‹•–‘”‹…ƒŽ –—†‹‡• ‘ˆ …‹‡Â?–‹ϔ‹… —Ž–—”‡,
 
 ed.
 
 Barry
 
 Barnes
 
 and
 
 Steven
 
  Shapin,
 
 125-Ââ€?139
 
 (Beverly
 
 Hills:
 
 Sage
 
 Publications,
 
 1979),
 
 126.
 
  8
 
 
 
  This
 
  analysis
 
  is
 
  not
 
  meant
 
  to
 
  disagree
 
  with
 
  Shapin
 
  and
 
  Barnes,
 
  who
 
  point
 
  out
 
  that,
 
  regardless
 
  of
 
  to
 
  what
 
  extent
 
  Darwin
 
  may
 
  be
 
  responsible,
 
  social
 
  Darwinism
 
  is
 
  a
 
  movement
 
  larger
 
  than
 
  any
 
  man,
 
  „‘—Â?† —’ ™‹–Š ƒŽŽ ‘ˆ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹… Â?ƒ–—”ƒŽ‹•Â?Ǥ 9
 
 
 
 Charles
 
 Darwin,
 
 The
 
 Descent
 
 of
 
 Man
 
 (Princeton:
 
 Princeton
 
  University
 
 Press,
 
 [1871]
 
 1981). ͳͲ – •Š‘—Ž† „‡ Â?‘–‡† –Šƒ– –Š‡ …‘Â?…‡’– ‘ˆ •…‹‡Â?–‹Ď?‹…ǥ ƒÂ?† ‡˜‡Â? •’‡…‹Ď?‹…ƒŽŽ› ‡˜‘Ž—–‹‘Â?ÂƒÂ”Â›ÇĄ ”ƒ…‹•Â? …‡”–ƒ‹Â?Ž› ’”‡†ƒ–‡• ƒ”™‹Â?Ǥ ƒ–Š‡” than
 
  implying
 
  that
 
  Darwin
 
  founded
 
  this
 
  movement,
 
  I
 
  instead
 
  argue
 
  Š‡”‡ –Šƒ– •’‡…‹Ď?‹… ƒ•’‡…–• ‘ˆ Š‹• –Š‡‘”› ™‡”‡ Žƒ–‡” …‘nj‘’–‡† „› scientists
 
 and
 
 others
 
 with
 
 more
 
 explicitly
 
 racist
 
 agendas. 11
 
 
 
 Charles
 
 Darwin,
 
 The
 
 Descent
 
 of
 
 Man
 
 (Princeton:
 
 Princeton
 
  University
 
 Press,
 
 [1871]
 
 1981),
 
 201. 12
 
 
 
 Charles
 
 Darwin,
 
 Letter
 
 to
 
 Asa
 
 Gray
 
 (June
 
 5,
 
 1861),
 
 in
 
 The
 
  ‘””‡•’‘Â?†‡Â?…‡ ‘ˆ Šƒ”Ž‡• ƒ”™‹Â?ÇĄ ‘Ž—Â?‡ Ϳǣ ͟͡͞͡,
 
 eds.
 
 Frederick
 
  Burkhardt,
 
 Janet
 
 Browne,
 
 Duncan
 
 M.
 
 Porter,
 
 and
 
 Marsha
 
 Richmond
 
  (Cambridge,
 
 UK:
 
 Cambridge
 
 University
 
 Press,
 
 1994),
 
 163. 13
 
 
 
 Ibid. 14
 
 
 
 Stephen
 
 Jay
 
 Gould,
 
 Ontogeny
 
 and
 
 Phylogeny
 
 (Cambridge,
 
 MA:
 
  Harvard
 
 University
 
 Press,
 
 1977),
 
 127. 15
 
 
 
 It
 
  should
 
 be
 
 stressed
 
 that
 
  although
 
 Haeckel
 
 was
 
  truly
 
  an
 
  avid
 
  evolutionist,
 
  he
 
  was
 
  not
 
  a
 
  strict
 
  Darwinian
 
  and
 
  also
 
  incorporated
 
  elements
 
 of
 
 Lamarckism
 
 and
 
 other
 
 thinking
 
 into
 
 his
 
 philosophy.
60 16
A
complementary
conclusion
to
the
argument
presented
here
regarding
Darwin’s
moral
culpability
for
racist
applications
of
his
theories
is
as
follows:
it
is
precisely
because
Haeckel
was
the
most
well-‐known
contemporary
popularizer
of
evolution
(Darwinian
and
other)
in
mainland
Europe
that
Darwin
has
avoided
much
of
the
blame.
In
essence,
because
Haeckel
was
so
widely
read
and
applied
evolutionary
language
to
issues
of
race
more
explicitly
than
Darwin
(and,
I
would
argue,
probably
also
because
his
theories
were
not
ultimately
as
successful
as
Darwin’s),
he
was
and
is
a
more
natural
target. 17
Janet
Browne,
“Man’s
Place
in
Nature,”
lecture
for
History
of
Science
100:
Knowing
the
World
(Cambridge,
MA:
November
4,
2008). 18
Haeckel
most
famously
expressed
this
concept
with
his
infamous
and
fraudulent
drawings
comparing
embryonic
development
across
species. 19
Edwin
G.
Conkin,
The
Direction
of
Human
Evolution
(New
York:
Scribner’s,
1922),
34;
53.
Conklin
was
a
professor
of
biology
at
Princeton
University
and
President
of
the
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science. ʹͲ ϐ ǡ Dz [1926],”
Natural
History
89
no.
4
(Apr.
1980):
129.
Osborn
was
a
professor
of
biology
and
zoology
at
Columbia
University
and
President
of
the
American
Museum
of
Natural
History
Board
of
Trustees. 21
Everett
Mendelsohn,
“The
Eugenic
Temptation:
When
Ethics
Lag
Behind
Technology,”
Harvard
Magazine
102
(March-‐April
2000):
4.
22
As
historian
Daniel
Charles
points
out,
Crookes
even
went
so
far
as
“helpfully”
to
delineate
exactly
whom
he
meant
by
this:
“Europeans,
North
Americans,
‘the
white
inhabitants
of
South
Africa’
and
‘the
white
population
of
the
European
colonies’”
(Charles
2005,
80-‐81). 23
Quoted
in
Daniel
Charles,
ǣ The
Tragedy
of
Fritz
Haber,
Father
of
Chemical
Warfare,
(London:
Jonathan
Cape,
2005),
82. 24
Steven
Shapin
and
Barry
Barnes,
“Darwin
and
Social
Darwinism:
Purity
and
History,”
in
ǣ ϔ ,
ed.
Barry
Barnes
and
Steven
Shapin,
125-‐139,
(Beverly
Hills:
Sage
Publications,
1979). 25
Daniel
Charles,
ǣ of
Fritz
Haber,
Father
of
Chemical
Warfare
(London:
Jonathan
Cape,
2005),
82. 26
“Positive
eugenics”
promotes
the
survival
and
reproduction
of
those
deemed
genetically
superior
as
opposed
“negative
eugenics”,
which
calls
for
the
elimination
of
perceived
negative
traits
from
the
gene
pool. 27
Fritz
Haber,
“The
Synthesis
of
Ammonia
from
Its
Elements,”
1918
Nobel
Prize
in
Chemistry
Lecture.
June
2,
1920,
in
Nobel
Lectures,
Chemistry
1901-1921,
edited
by
The
Nobel
Foundation,
326-‐340
(Amsterdam:
Elsevier
Publishing
Company,
1921),
326-‐327,
emphasis
added. 28
Quoted
in
Daniel
Charles,
ǣ The
Tragedy
of
Fritz
Haber,
Father
of
Chemical
Warfare,
(London:
Jonathan
Cape,
2005),
142. 29
Ibid.,
143. 30
Quoted
in
Bretislav
Friedrich,
“Review
of
ǣ Chemist,
Nobel
Laureate,
German,
Jew,
by
Dietrich
Stoltzenberg”,
Angewante
Chemie
International
Edition
44,
no.
26
(June
27,
2005):
3957-‐3961. 31
Daniel
Charles,
ǣ of
Fritz
Haber,
Father
of
Chemical
Warfare,
(London:
Jonathan
Cape,
2005),
184. 32
Arthur
Keith,
Evolution
and
Ethics
(New
York:
G.P.
Putnam’s
Sons,
1947),
230;
10.
Synthesis,
Issue
1,
May
2009
33
Besides
“evolution”,
the
German
word
Entwicklung
is
also
translated
as
“development”. 34
One
example
of
Hitler
adopting
evolutionary
language
in
Mein
Kampf
reads
as
follows:
“The
coupling
of
two
not
quite
equal
formations
does
not
correspond
to
the
natural
law
of
evolution,
but
the
victory
of
the
stronger
in
the
tense
struggle,
and
the
breeding
of
the
strength
and
the
force
of
the
victor
made
possible
by
this”
([1925-‐6]
1939,
486). 35
Adolf
Hitler,
Mein
Kampf ȋ ǣ ϐ ǡ [1925-‐6]
1939),
606. 36
Steven
Shapin
and
Barry
Barnes,
“Darwin
and
Social
Darwinism:
Purity
and
History,”
in
ǣ ϔ ,
ed.
Barry
Barnes
and
Steven
Shapin,
125-‐139
(Beverly
Hills:
Sage
Publications,
1979),
127.
Emphases
in
original. 37
Charles
Darwin,
The
Descent
of
Man
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press,
[1871]
1981),
203. 38
Wilfred
Owen,
“Dulce
et
Decorum
Est,”
[1917-‐1918],
in
Penguin
Book
of
First
World
War
Poetry,
2nd
ed.,
ed.
John
Silkin,
192-‐ 193
(London:
Penguin
Books,
1994).
If
you
would
like
to
order
additional
copies
of
Synthesis,
they
are
available
from
an
online
publisher
at
http://magcloud.com/ browse/Issue/17334.