MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088482767 · doi:10.1353/bhm.2013.0045

The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine by Nathaniel Comfort (review)

2013· article· en· W2088482767 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pauline M. H. Mazumdar

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the history of medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHistory of Medical Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalton's problemEugenicsPerfectionClubHistory of medicineClassicsHistorySociologyArt historyMedicineGeneticsPhilosophyBiologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine by Nathaniel Comfort Pauline M. H. Mazumdar Nathaniel Comfort. The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2012. xvii + 316 pp. Ill. $35.00 (978-0-300-16991-1). Nathaniel Comfort’s book is a product of the Oral History of Human Genetics Program, a joint project of UCLA and Johns Hopkins, started by Edward McCabe in 2001 as a “multi-institutional collaboration dedicated to the documentation and preservation of the history of the field of human genetics.” The project has collected a large archive of oral histories from the second part of the twentieth century, and a matching bibliography of primary and secondary sources to go with them. Comfort, at the project’s Hopkins end, has made very good use of this rich collection to argue for a new view of eugenics. He starts with a Hopkins story and four Hopkins men: three from the hospital and one from the university: Victor McCusick from Medicine, Barton Childs from Paediatrics, Abraham Lilienfeld from Epidemiology, and Bentley Glass from Biology (p. 1). In 1950, they met to start a journal club on medical genetics, and they named it the Galton–Garrod Society, after two founding figures of the nineteenth century—Francis Galton, a Darwin cousin who coined the name “eugenics” for the genetic improvement of human populations, and Archibald Garrod, who proposed the first “inborn error of metabolism,” when he analyzed a baby’s nappy that had turned black from the presence of alcaptonuria and found it running in families. Comfort, like his Four Doctors, takes these two iconic figures as the connecting thread of his argument: eugenics as population genetics, and biochemical genetics to represent the individualized or medical strain. He is pretty bold in invoking Galton: eugenics has had a very frightening history. It is hard to find a social historian who can look at it without shuddering—Devon Stillwell’s article in the 2012 summer Bulletin is a just-published example. But it is Comfort’s position that both strains are present in the modern synthesis that is medical genetics. From the early twentieth century, Comfort argues the intertwining of eugenics and public health, integrating a medical eugenics into Progressive health reform. His history shows the personal and institutional connections between the old Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, founded by the wild eugenists Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin in 1910, through the development of the network of medical Heredity Clinics, beginning in the late thirties, to the 1968 takeover of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory by the iconic James Watson. The Eugenics Record Office had ended as a eugenics operation in 1939, and efforts to revive it after Davenport died in 1944 failed. Watson had found it “[b]roke, decrepit and almost empty,” in Comfort’s words, but he remade it in his own splendidly modern image (p. 220). Comfort sees an odd resemblance between Davenport and Watson: they both, he says, though greatly respected by contemporaries, had a reputation for dramatics, for being a bit of a loose cannon (p. 236). Both had a sophisticated, up-to-the-minute understanding of their field—and both enthusiastically promoted genetics as the “most powerful weapon” (p. 238) for eliminating disease from the human race. [End Page 488] Comfort has stuff on everyone—scientists, clinicians, even the students who went to their seminars. With the help of wide and detailed archival research, he has worked out exactly who studied where, who knew whom, who were the institution builders who developed the networks, and what they said about each other, in public and private. In the thirties and forties, the push to get human genetics into medical schools was led by Madge Macklin of Western Ontario (p. 87), and blood-grouper Laurence Snyder of Harvard. Snyder designed the first medical genetics course for medical students, and several medical genetics programs. He lectured and wrote, promoting the field as essential to medicine; he started the professional society in 1948 (p. 86). But from an interview of 1939 in the archives of the Carnegie Corporation...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.030
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the history of medicineSame topicHistory of Medical PracticeFrench-language works237,207