October 7, 1921] 



SCIENCE 



319 



formidable. We may now boldly assert that 

 when the heritable defects of many members 

 of a family are very serious, those belonging 

 to it should not become parents ; but how seri- 

 ous must these defects be before being regarded 

 as a bar to parenthood? It will never be pos- 

 sible to draw as sharp a line of demarcation 

 as that between sheep and goats when marking 

 off from the general population those in whom 

 •.parenthood would be a moral offense. Because 

 of this impossibility, it may come to be held 

 that the size of the family should vary with the 

 innate qualities of the parents ; but how is this 

 relationship between fertility and transmissible 

 characteristics to be determined ? Then, again, 

 many who take no thought concerning racial 

 questions now hold strongly that it is wrong to 

 bring a child into the world without a reason- 

 able prospect of its being able to live a life up 

 to a certain standard of civilization. But what 

 should be the standard adopted? In large 

 numbers of cases the cause which has pre- 

 vented the winning of a " standard " liveli- 

 hood, however we may define that term, has 

 been some inborn defect, or defect which would 

 in a measure be passed on to the next genera- 

 tion. Teach those not living up to standard to 

 regulate their conduct with due regard to the 

 welfare of any children who may or may not 

 be born in the future, and many would limit 

 their families on this account ; with the results 

 that these harmful innate defects would appear 

 less frequently in future generations. Is it 

 not, therefore, of great importance that some 

 attempt should be made to ascertain what 

 standard of living does justify parenthood? 

 Again it is even more important that it should 

 be widely felt that it is morally wrong to limit 

 unduly the size of the family when parents are 

 up to " standard " in all respects ; for it is 

 essential for the welfare of mankind that the 

 seed of this good stock should not be lost to 

 posterity. Eugenical societies should, in my 

 opinion, steadily keep in view the necessity of 

 trying to solve all these intensely difEcult prob- 

 lems; problems which need the joint consid- 

 eration of the eugenist, the geneticist, and the 

 economist for their solution. But as for our 

 advice of to-day concerning personal conduct 



in regard to procreation, we can say little more 

 than that moral principles must always be kept 

 in the foreground, and that, for the rest, trust 

 must be placed in common sense and a wise 

 doctor.^ 



To whatever extent success may attend our 

 efforts to lay down rules for personal conduct 

 in regard to parenthood, to that extent we shall 

 have succeeded in deciding on the directions 

 in which we wish to advance in these matters. 

 Such decisions will, however, prove to be but 

 a very uncertain indication of the extent to 

 which the state should endeavor to promote or 

 to enforce obedience to these rules; this being 

 the subject to which we must now turn our 

 attention. By promoting uniformity of condi- 

 tions and by checking individual initiative, the 

 state often retards progress; and, besides affect- 

 ing those intended to be affected, governmental 

 action nearly always produces on other persons 

 various consequences which were unforeseen 

 and which are never fully realized. Whatever 

 may be our political opinions, we nearly all of 

 us agree that these are dangers which must be 

 taken into account when contemplating state 

 control over the individual. These are, how- 

 ever, large issues which some will regard as 

 lying outside the proper scope of eugenic con- 

 siderations ; whilst the point which I especially 

 wish to emphasize in this connection is one 

 definitely related to the actions of eugenical so- 

 cieties. In my opinion our societies ought to 

 be ready to encourage discussion on all pro- 

 posals for relevant reforms, whilst they should 

 be cautious in the present state of our knowl- 

 edge in actually recommending governmental 

 interference. If discussion be not bold, prog- 

 ress will be slow; for a nation can not grope 

 its way quickly to the front in the darkness of 

 ignorance. If action be too bold, progress will 

 also be slow; for the wrong road will often be 

 taken. In matters of conduct we should bal- 

 ance the prohability of good or evil arising 

 from the action proposed to be taken, as 

 against the magnitude of the good or evil if it 

 does arise. The smaller the chances of failure, 

 the smaller may be the benefits hoped to be 



- I assume that the doctor has studied genetics, 

 which is unfortunately not always the case. 



