EUGENICS AND OTHER SCIENCES 
Some Comments by Frederick Adams Woods on an Article in the Eugenics Review 
HE Eugenics Review, which is 
the official organ of the Eugenics 
Education Society of London, 
contains a comprehensive and 
suggestive article on “The Relations of 
Eugenics to the Other Sciences,’ by 
Harry H. Laughlin. 
In regard to genealogy the author 
says: “Genealogies and biographies 
have existed since civilization began. 
At present the genealogist strives to 
work out the family net-work, giving 
the names, dates, and connections. He 
is often content to stop there. The task 
of eugenics is to prevail upon all of 
these workers to provide a description 
of the natural, physical, mental, and 
temperamental qualities of each mem- 
ber listed in the net-work, When this 
is done, the genealogist supplies a 
record of practical pedigree-value, one 
which can be used in tracing the descent 
and re-combination of natural qualities 
within the family-tree.” 
The author’s remarks on the relation 
of eugenics to biography are open to 
some question. “The history of man- 
kind is equivalent to the biographies of 
all of its human units. The different 
weights that different men have sup- 
plied in making history is so vast that 
we often shorten the statement by say- 
ing that ‘the history of the race is the 
biographies of its great men.’” 
This is very likely true, but the rela- 
tions of great men to the ages in which 
they have lived are doubtless recipro- 
cals, and many writers contend that 
great men are largely the products of 
their times. There has been but little 
done in the way of systematic and 
quantitive study on this problem. What 
little research there is, points towards 
the view that great geniuses are born as 
such, and lead the way in creating new 
epochs, More investigations are much 
to be desired. 
The author’s following statement we 
take exception to, simply because we 
do not believe that it is at present prac- 
tical: “The eugenicist has the task of 
convincing the writer of biographies 
that one of his principal duties in the 
description of the life of his subject is 
to resolve the factors of nature and 
nurture—to evaluate the effect of speci- 
fic hereditary traits in making the 
human machine that turned out the 
specific product which he is describing 
as a life’s contribution to history.” 
It is not possible for a biographer, or 
historian, or indeed any writer, even if 
he be equipped with the utmost scien- 
tific knowledge, to resolve in any one in- 
dividual “the factors of nature and 
nurture” or to “evaluate the effect of 
specific hereditary traits.” This can be 
done only when large statistical totals 
are available, and then only when 
special schemes have been devised. 
Any assertion that such and such a trait 
was inherited from such and such an 
ancestor, or that such and such a char- 
acteristic was “clearly the result of 
early influence,” etc., etc., is not only 
pure dogmatism, but it is often pathet- 
ically naive. 
Some day we may know so much 
about the limits of heredity and en- 
vironment, in general, for all kinds of 
specific traits, both mental and moral, 
that we can rightly suppose that what 
is true in the general is probably true in 
the indwidual; but for the present it is 
idle for the biographer to do more than 
carefully trace the complete immediate 
pedigree of his subject in all its ramifi- 
cations and to record as many as pos- 
sible of the facts. These facts can be 
made the bases of statistical inquiries. 
In regard to sociology the author 
says: “There is a tendency on the part 
of sociologists to ascribe practically all 
of the factors of human destiny to 
77 
