 Thank you, Rob. Thank you, Marius. I will now Guide the question and answer session for these two talks my first question is actually from From the audience and I think this sets up a very good Frame for opening and beginning the discussion And I think this is for both of you both You Rob and you Marius How do we and this is from Amanda court right men? And She writes how do we begin to address the infrastructure that was based on eugenic notions such as in education politics medicine and such that That act you know or could act as the foundation of many of our current practices and beliefs and that serve clear public functions And I think we can think about how museums Function in this way so but anyone like to start to answer the question to begin our discussion Yeah, as I said in my talk the American Museum of Natural History is long maintained a twin-pronged approach to its existence Education and science and this is why the Congress at the museum was so so important to the eugenicist Without it. I think they they really didn't have the mechanisms to Popularize with what they were doing although Eugenics was sort of mainstream at the point at that point in time convincing the public was with something that they needed to do and Unfortunately, that's exactly the job of the museum is to educate them to educate the public with the science that we do and when you have a an administration and in the museum comprised of people like Henry Fairfield Osborne and Winslet and others at the American Museum at the time They subverted the mission of the museum To their own to their own needs and and wants and that's a really Not so good thing and also as I pointed out board of trustees didn't want to do anything too So we have a situation where an institution completely failed Failed at its mission really Marius you have a further comment. Yeah Firstly, I should say Thank you Rob for this wonderful presentation I've Greatly enjoyed that and I think it's extremely useful to all of us to know a bit more about the intricacies of how the Congress came about and who played a role in How it was presented to the public So that's one thing secondly any connection to the question. My point is that Particularly after the first full wall And considering the dramatic human losses and the entire reshuffling of the world eugenics goes into you know, a full development and Scientists Trying to attach some credibility to it, but then we have institutions and the American Museum of Natural History is one example and It's interesting to see how this will develop for the next 30 years because it happens all across the world. It is before 1914 you had eugenics societies, but they're not associated to prestigious institutions Not only in America, but also in in Europe or Britain After the first four major institutions of research universities will be associated with eugenics giving it credibility It's a completely different thing if you are a Reach individual and you write your own books and you publish them and you go to your gentlemen club and you propagate ideas about Rays and eugenics, and it's a bit different thing if a prestigious university a prestigious department a museum or Public institution of any sort in those is that view and allows These discussion to happen and this is what occurred already in 1912 on they met in London for the first week eugenic Congress You have very important politicians who attended the Congress give you get a certain credibility with the church who was there Alexander Graham Bell was there. The second international eugenic Congress was actually Played a great deal in enhancing this relationship. They had with luminaries Such as Bell for example, who was a scientific celebrity, of course So even those who are critical of eugenics later, for example, Raymond Pearl, right? Yeah, you mentioned Boas very aptly I would just bring Raymond Pearl in 1912 of his very Esosiasic about eugenics believing that there is a the time is ripe To discuss eugenics, of course later on he realizes many others. I suppose that he was just a completely different story but all of these names all of these institutions all of these Political support they did get played a significant role in making the transition from pseudo scientific discussion to an acceptable discussion publicly and then to a Scientific idea which could have legs and which circulated very quickly around the corners of the world so the role of institutions and The role of museums in this particular conversation I think has to be highlighted as it was not just a place where discussions Happened, but it was the medium through which discussions. Thank you, Marius My follow-up question for both of you and it's a bit different for for each is How could you talk about each of you how these these discussions these memorializations these exhibits Came about And Rob you can talk a little bit more about how American Museum of Natural History has has done a number of things to start confronting many Many historical legacies to begin I suppose and then I will pivot to Marius and he can talk a little bit more about the Just add a little bit to what Marius said in the context of the American Museum in 1926 shortly after the Congress I was born in Davenport. I believe it was Davenport started the American eugenical Society, which was a major step in legitimizing the the whole whole process and the American Museum shortly after hired a Anthropologist named Harry Shapiro who was the president of the American eugenical Society for a decade, I believe and Shapiro's Persona kind of overwhelmed the museum and its attitudes toward human diversity and human variability Shapiro was was touted as a guy who could look at a look at newborns and Determine what percentage of Of their background was German and Irish and so on so His his approaches were I'm sorry to say pretty unscientific It wasn't until the 1980s that Shapiro retired and that we hired Ian Tattersall who is probably the person who turned turned the view of human evolution and human races and and how we deal with human human history around So that that's a major major point there is the hiring of somebody that the firing or the retirement of somebody Who was promulgating the ideas and the hiring of someone who was was fighting against those ideas and then since then the museum has been very open about our involvement in eugenics. I wish we were Even more open and then we have been in the past but We we have opened our archives to several researchers we have Talked about the eugenics congresses and exhibits that we did in a 2001 exhibit that we did on the human genome And we opened a new hall It actually replaced the hall for the hall of human biology called the Hall of Human Origins where we discuss race and and all of the Aspects of human human evolution and human diversity and We have I think Taken on the Centennial of this Horrible Congress head on with some of the things that we've done Some of the things that were presented in September. I think we're good examples of how an institution can can face face these things Fantastic Marius, would you like to talk a little bit about in terms of how you got the exhibit together and in particular some of the wider goals and purposes of The exhibit and your presentation Yes, thank you it was connected to the Century of you know Rethinking what it meant and what it means still to us when we look back to 1921 and Organizing an exhibition was a way of Engaging with some of the themes Discussed at the Congress but at the same time putting it all into a more sort of long perspective But there was another reason why I thought an exhibition. It's a good thing because as Rob pointed out If we look at history of eugenic movements everywhere and this was highlighted yesterday as well by Alex Simon minister Exhibitions were always part and parcel of the public engagement if I can use this new term of The eugenicists they realized immediately They are very very shaky grounds on the one hand So how do you convince the public to buy into your arguments? So they went to fairs the organized editions They go back to you know early 20th century and major world fairs And major public fairs were all accompanied by eugenic exhibitions Starting with already 1910s. We have 1915 in California in San Francisco the major International Fair it's one example any continues is the same in the UK in Britain eugenic society here Made it part of its Program to spread education amongst the public now this was done in many different ways Through incessant publications of various posters and artifacts and explanations for the general public Through public lectures that important geneticists Biologists and scientists would give to the public or to the eugenic society If you look at the British eugenic society, and if you look at the major Conferences organized by by the society Which you wouldn't be able to leave anyone out of the entire scientific elite of Great Britain during the 1920s and 30s With few exceptions all of them gave a public lecture to the eugenic society, and it was done in a very casual way Addressing important issues, but in a very casual way so to attract Of course, this is one side of the story We have another side of the story when people eugenicists who are more concerned with the scientific credibility of eugenics or rather Reluctant to do this form of public engagement and I'll give you one example and We have some in America as well Rob mentioned Morgan and Mueller and others who Were always, you know, at least at the beginning ambiguous towards eugenics. They were more radical later Carpecin who was an outspoken eugenics carpecin famous statistician is as you know And disciple of carp of francis colton and protégé and biographer francis colton However, he was extremely critical of the eugenic society. It accused the eugenic society of Not having scientific standards of popularizing of being a fad exactly was robos saying, you know being a fad and he was very upset with how the eugenics society Believed that without proper scientific checking of some of the eugenic ideas, they could go out and claim They could fix this and they could fix that so carpecin was We need to firstly establish Very strong mathematical and biological foundations for eugenics and then move into popularizing it So he didn't like that at all but you know, the the the importance of of memorializing and Explaining this today it's even more I suppose important because There is a huge literature Of course on various aspects of eugenics and everywhere you have a case studies wonderfully analyzed and and problematized but the public of course Knows a little about it and then exposing in a way and engaging the general public with the history of a particular institution and the role he played In disseminating eugenics is crucially important in in the uk and particularly in london. We had this with the university college Of course, there's a big public debate about the role played by university college london and Entire discussion about naming and renaming various lecture theaters Because they carried the name of francis colton or carpecin And the debate about fischer in kenbridge was important. So and I could see that happening, of course, of various levels and bringing the institution in Bringing these exhibitions in because as rob pointed out so poignantly ultimately When you realize the the the extraordinary effort these people put into the exhibition it cost a lot of money for at the time It was done quite Exquisitely if you look at the catalogs Also, if you look at the people who got involved If you look for example at the names who contribute with exhibits to the international exhibition organized in 1921 you'll be surprised to find so many of the very important medical Authorities in america in the 1920s Women and men They contribute with with samples from their collections from the hospitals So apart from the races like madis and grand Apart from people like that import you have a host of other people who are actually very well established and are considered to date Revved by the medical tradition for example or by the scientific community It was the same with the british delegation british delegation created their own exhibition there And of course you have people like Darwin and others but uh, and i'll finish with this chris. Um, let's not forget the others who are there and also People from all over the world. This is the first time that They could claim and this was osborn's idea If we look at the opening address Osborn gave to the congress on that Very hot The day september It was i think the the eighth hottest day now is sorry. It was the the fourth hottest day on record Now is the the eighth By the time so everybody floated to the museum because you know, it was it was cool and it was Nice to be inside and stay away from the heat And osborn give this amazing opening address when you see it says simply this is our moment We need to capitalize On this extraordinary historical moment We're finally emerging from the vortex of barbarism, which is the first world war and we create something amazing And he uh, he spoke to the he spoke to the public when he said that His target was the public as much as it was the scientists or the participants of the congress No, thank you marias. That was really fascinating discussion. I think absolutely correct. Um One of the questions that I want to take from the from the q&a is marcia darnowski's question or her two questions actually Which she very conveniently summarized as what do we gain and what do we lose by talking about eugenics as pseudoscience? And I think rob because your your presentation Directly addresses this question. This is a question for you first and then marius. Of course you can add a comment Yeah, um, I think it's it's um very important to to Point out the pseudoscience and in eugenics, obviously, um, you know piercing Was was a good at it. Um baitson who was invited to the meeting declined to go I read his his The words of his declination and it's kind of funny. He kind of it's a it's a back It's a backhanded slap a compliment, you know, you guys can do what you want But it's not scientific. So I'm not going to go And I focus on what what boas said about it but boas that that The eugenics was trying to understand human behavior And trying to do something about human behavior. Of course, that was his his expertise And boas knew that human behavior was so complex that that He had no hope for for There being a scientific explanation for any human behavior really and and he's really clear about this in his 1916 eugenics review review paper And it brings me brings to mind something that the late richard luenton Passed away this last year said about the genetic basis of human behaviors and and the the genetic basis of of Topics that that come up in eugenics and he has a two-word response to it, which is tough luck We're never going to figure it out. We might as well We we should just step back and realize that we're not going to figure these things out I think that's equally important for us to realize has come up a few times in the in the previous days about How do we go out and collect more data on skin color and and hair texture and things like that? We're we're trying I think what we're doing is we're oversimplifying What we do as scientists and we're taking the easy way out by by collecting data on these things that That the eugenics collected data on and we see how much progress they made Um None no scientific progress What whatsoever so I I think we need to keep that in mind um And we not only do we need to assess the scientific Worth of eugenics, but we need to continually assess the scientific worth of what we do What we do currently as scientists and what we do is as researchers so and and you know I I I'm guilty of a lot of a lot of Of this oversimplifying myself But in in essence you need to step back and look at it really hard so that it doesn't You know end up being unscientific and and end up being in that same category with eugenics I mean I just to Jump in quickly I think this is also a different question that we can consider But not necessarily answer in the context of this discussion is What do we do with the the legacies and the understanding of of geneticists like fischer and dobjanski? Whose work is foundational, but who clearly held racist colonialist beliefs and And who advocated Immoral unethical practices Do you have sort of some insights about how scientists and also the general public should should Think about these figures So going forward as as their views and opinions become more well known I think dobjanski is a little less known than fischer's but still as stark and maria. So I'll let you respond as well Um, thank you The caveat here is that at the time, of course, um Many of these people were, you know, the top scientists Not just in biology, but in in medicine or sociology or demography. So it's it's extremely difficult to call that pseudoscientific Because at the time they looked at it as the cutting edge of science They also looked at it as a synthesis of various disciplines That's that's another thing that people tend to gloss over but not understand quite Properly because it wasn't just one discipline eugenics. It was meant to be a synergetic way of looking at various problems. So it was not just with one discipline So that's that's that has to be said because I think it is important And I agree with with comments made Here that Why simply call it pseudoscience? We basically are brushing aside the way they looked at it and the way they believe they could contribute To various debates on human emergency human progress and social problems of all sorts So that's that's a complicated thing. But of course it is it is a it is a hermeneutical conversation and historiographic debate in many ways. This is not what the public Proceeds and already in the 1960s philosophers such as Who criticized the nazi regime Used the argument that eugenics is a pseudoscience to really read the entire experience of eugenics through the prism of nazi Racial hygiene program And it was much easier to call eugenics a irrational George Lucas the famous Marxist philosopher described eugenics in this way So there was a the drive to to look at it And of course at the time people didn't really discuss what were the american eugenics or british eugenics or scandinavian eugenics Let alone other places around the world. No one knew anything about what happened in central america or eastern europe This is very recent So the whole discussion about eugenics as a pseudoscience goes back to the 1960s. This is how it was formulated It was a very easy way to actually Get uh get us forward by not examining our past because it was was relegated to the nazi experience and they were They politicized it. It was abuse of science the nazi doctors did and uh that developed in that direction It's only recently for the past Three decades that we see a completely new way of understanding the foundations of eugenics And then we have new scholarship that's able to look at it in a way that allows for this idiosyncratic readings of eugenics to emerge so We shouldn't completely fall into the trap of of of You know Diminishing entirely the views of these people the way they perceive themselves scientifically However, I would argue that it is very important to keep that element in perspective And if we want to to talk about anti eugenics, then certainly the scientific element of it is is is centered to our arguments We criticize it because of its alleged scientific pretensions and where it failed Because of its human loss and human tragedies, right? So, um, we cannot go around it But we need to address it in a way which is attentive to historical nuances And it's attentive to languages being used at the time and then how those languages develop throughout 20th century to this day Rob, if you have any further comments Well, I I I think that I've really enjoyed hearing marius's comments. I'm I'm in awe but I I think that the the um, if you go back and you read the texts of the of the talks from the 21 conference or if you look at the summaries of the exhibits from from Those catalogs that I showed You get a sense for really bad science So so the the important researchers like morgan and Some of the other well respected geneticists didn't contribute papers to that to the to the collection and But the rest of the papers are are drivel I mean if you if you look at them and so I think I don't know if this is helpful marius But I think there were if you if you look at the science or the purported science that was being done It just wasn't there and so somebody it was easy pickings for somebody like bateson or piercin or boas to Look at it and go. Oh, that's that's drivel. You know, that's that's over interpreting. That's that's using your your God-given brain to do something silly. So And but you're right it took a while for for The the questioning to begin and you know the American eugenics society didn't disband until the 1990s, right? I think it was the 1990s that it disbanded in And it's not like eugenics is over either. I mean we still see it all over the place. So Just I'm just trying to point out that the science in in eugenics the science in understanding human behaviors To me hasn't gotten any better over a century And and I think it's it goes back to dick lowenton tough luck. We're we're just in a tough luck position and and We need to ask we don't we need to ask different questions Asking that question is not the right question asking a a different question Collecting the data that we need to collect that's much more informative and much more useful in science Rather than skin color and hair texture We need to be more industrious about how we collect phenotypes for human variation and how we We use that to to say something important and interesting about our species Because all this stuff about skin color hair texture all this stuff is to me just so so uninteresting So rob actually to follow up on what you just said Which is a I think a really important point. Um, how And I think in a related sense how so the American Museum of Natural History just like the NIH is is a source of trusted scientific information and trusted research programs and trusted funding and advancing revolutionary science How do scientific institutions confront eugenic legacies while also remaining remaining forthright about the The potentialities of these newly emerging sciences, obviously they're connected and I want to I want to have you Illustrate and emphasize that we've just gone through four years of of extreme anti science attitudes and it's really hurt us and it's the kind of that kind of anti scientific thinking is is Not only bad for understanding historical phenomena like eugenics, but for understanding some very prominent modern problems that we have And this lack of of scientific Approach this lack of being able to explain things in scientific terms Or this need on the part of a museum and on part of the NIH to explain things in scientific terms is really important we're I mean, I don't want to sound too alarmist, but we we we could have things like eugenics Hanging around with us for a decade or two and we don't want that We want to get beyond anything that's pseudoscientific or or Anti scientific as quickly as we can and move and move on and and we need to use eugenics as an example I I think in in in many ways the museum You're right the museum and NIH has just an amazing website with information on it and just It's a it's a go-to thing museum is the go-to place for for Science in in the city of new york. I mean it's so we have an obligation to to Make sure that our science is clear and that people understand that our science is important Whether it be dinosaurs or the colors of butterflies or as we've just completed at the american museum a whole Web website on kovat on sar's kov2. So We're trusted and you know Marius's exhibit is trusted right museums and and exhibits and NIH and nsf and all these places are trusted and we We need to really Take advantage of that trust and and be true to that trust and sometimes it's It fails as as as it did for eugenics and and then early 1900s And the american museum So I just wanted to jump in and say we have two more only two more minutes and I think we should try to end by Focusing on what rob has said about this about the meaning of eugenics obviously being about confronting understanding the history Confronting present-day eugenics, but also building trust and I think Uh to to talk about science to talk about Uh problematic legacies problematic individuals. So marius, could you talk a little bit more about sort of? Thinking about the history of eugenics and present-day Uh manifestations and science generally as as part of this trust dynamic if i'm clear enough Why do we build trust to understand trust in how do we build trust in science through understanding eugenics and its histories? Well, this is probably you we should have Organized a conference only on this question It's extremely difficult to offer an answer in a minute, but I completely agree with rob and with you that gaining trust Is it's essential in this conversation and also full transparency? We mentioned some of the names here and we need to come clear with and clean with some of the names We mentioned miller. We could mention julian haxley. We could mention a lot of you mentioned Robert cook Yeah, and all of these names Rarely appear, but they should appear. So in other words full transparency. Also, I should like to add that If we if we do go The nine yards into exploring the legacies of eugenics, then we have to look outside genetics And we need to look at other disciplines Demography very important public health extremely important And then we can and to mention just Anthropology because if it's apology Absolutely without a psychiatry. I mean the development psychiatry and psychology cannot be dissociated from the development of eugenics And then we can bring together these questions that Were highlighted by by robin his presentation and in his comments then how do we entrust an institution to represent that Reckoning with the past because ultimately we need the institutions to do their work as much as individuals of their work So rob any concluding thoughts because we are we are a little I thought that was perfect All right, thank you both. That was a fascinating question and answer session and absolutely fantastic presentations I want to underscore to the audience that we will now be going on break until 245 In the afternoon eastern standard time. We will see you then. Thank you again