The dark history of genetics - with Adam Rutherford (2023 HBS Haldane Lecture)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 04. 2024
- Genetics is a subject with a long past, and some of our greatest geneticists have had some troubling beliefs.
Join this channel to watch the Q&A for this lecture: • Q&A: The dark and trou...
Buy Adam's book 'Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics' here: geni.us/OrlwiUF
This lecture was recorded at the Ri on 11 October 2023.
Join the 2023 JBS Haldane Lecturer Adam Rutherford as he explores how, as we continue to use and celebrate the advances of our intellectual predecessors, we frequently fail to acknowledge the toxic political views that informed their work.
Even today, scientists are not exempt from their culture, and science is always political. In this talk Adam will explore the work, views and legacies of some of our heroes, including Karl Pearson, Ronald Fisher and yes, JBS Haldane.
The JBS Haldane Lecture recognises an individual for outstanding ability to communicate topical subjects in genetics research, widely interpreted, to an interested lay audience. This speaker will have a flair for conveying the relevance and excitement of recent advances in genetics in an informative and engaging way. Find out more here: genetics.org.uk/medals-and-pr...
---
Dr Adam Rutherford is a science writer and broadcaster. He studied genetics at University College London, and during his PhD on the developing eye, he was part of a team that identified the first genetic cause of a form of childhood blindness.
He has written and presented many award-winning series and programmes for the BBC, including the flagship weekly Radio 4 programme 'Inside Science' and 'The curious cases of Rutherford & Fry' with Dr Hannah Fry.
He is the author 'Creation', which was shortlisted for the Wellcome Trust Prize, 'A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived', 'The Book of Humans' the Sunday Times bestselling 'How to Argue with a Racist' and the co-author of 'Rutherford and Fry's Complete Guide to Absolutely Everything (Abridged)'.
Adam's latest book, 'Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics' is available from Amazon here: geni.us/OrlwiUF
---
The Ri is on Twitter: / ri_science
and Facebook: / royalinstitution
and TikTok: / ri_science
Listen to the Ri podcast: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Donate to the RI and help us bring you more lectures: www.rigb.org/support-us/donat...
Our editorial policy: www.rigb.org/editing-ri-talks...
Subscribe for the latest science videos: bit.ly/RiNewsletter
Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link. - Věda a technologie
I think 'racial' in Huxley's statement is likely referring to the whole human race. He was a man of his time in that 'race' was used at species level and perhaps higher. Look at Darwin's use of 'favoured races' in regard to all kinds of naturally selected organisms in his book. In our time, the race-related word has shrunk to focus on prejudices between humans.
Great talk, informative
speaking about idea of "matter and energy" relationship, if you know something about HOW special relativity works and what s result of this famous relationship, it has nothing to do with speculations like that. In literature of late 19th century you can find out many interesting ideas - from our perspective, when we read it from our contemprorary perspective. We need to be able to distinct these ideas - between popularisation of these times and between foreseen ideas - as an example Henri Poincare s idea of gravity propagation and results of Einstein General theory of relativity. With all respect to Pearson, physics of this time is something else than biology as famously lord Kelvin mentioned - sounds rough from today s perspective, but there s something in it.
13:40 thank you for that. People in the USA need to hear that more
great talk
I’m four minutes in and the “and then they were racist/eugenist at the end of every scientist introduction is making me laugh
It's quite ridiculous if you ask me.
@@benjamindover4337 It is, but you also never expect scientists to be bad people sometimes or go against ethics
@@CorgiTheRegularCorgi17 They weren't bad people though, this is just generic propaganda.
@@benjamindover4337ridiculous that so many were or ridiculous its being highlighted?
@@benjamindover4337given that the continued teaching of eugenic theory being open about it being eugenic theory was the topic of the lecture, I'm of the opinion that it was not at all ridiculous.
Very interesting lecture. Glad I took the time to watch.
How far should the cancelling of the name of Fisher proceed? Until we deny that he made any scientific contribution? That is a slippery downward slope towards ignorance.
The attendees listed at 1:17:00. Francis Darwin is subtitled as "7th F1 of Charles". LOL
Darwin knew nothing about genes. He had the insight to know that the environment determines characteristics. For example, paler skin evolved as a result of selection pressure caused by the environment.
Darwin was right, and he didn't even have any concept of genes! What a genius!
One of the most interesting talks I've watched on this channel. Excellent speaker with and excellently built talk. Good job!
Watson on Franklin. Again rewrite history to get closer to the truth, NOT to align with your modern agenda. This is a hard task no doubt.
Hi
Open your eyes and see. That's all you have to do.
Some people may have difficulty reading because of eyesight problems
not for the demographic for which this sort of "everything is racist" narrative is aimed. If you need glasses, you're either too old to buy the "remodel the past to fit today's narrative" narrative, or you're just weak and out of luck.
Excellent talk, thank you. For further reading, I would highly recommend Siddhartha Mukherjee's The Gene: An Intimate History.
Dr Rutherford surely?
What a wonderfully thought provoking interesting lecture, this should be part of our school children’s education.
"We've embraced the eugenicists view that all characteristics are determined by single genes and that is what we teach to school children." This is totally absurd! (He cant even make an argument there.)
Well he presents evidence for his argument, can you present your evidence to refute?
do you think genes determine all characteristics? I suppose you could vaguely claim that for at least biological ones, whatever counts as those when considering intelligence. But regardless even that is dubious, since once the genes and proteins get to work the total system has a retroactive dominance over which genes it uses to continue working, this dominance includes stimulus from the environment. So when considering the total system Genes and our Environment determine all biological characteristics, which isnt a very controversial claim
Tell me you didn't make it to the last 10 minutes without....
No, the environment determines characteristics. Paler skin evolved as a result of selection pressure caused by the environment.
I am dumbstruck that no one seems to notice the similarities between 1920 and the present?
Adam Rutherford's superb book 'How to Argue With a Racist' explained to me in clear and simple terms so that even I could follow the science, how every First Nations Australian living today is descended from people living in Europe about 5000 BC.
And then there is the rewrite of history to promote a narative. If you control the past (history) you control the present.
What is it with people being judged by standards that didn't exist until hundreds of years after their death? Just think about how history will view the thoughts which you assume are normal today.
Yes, he mentions this. But, in saying that, judging and deeming others as inferior based on their race or ethnicity was never really a good thing to do regardless of date...
@@applegal3058 The 19th century was also the time of the 'Noble Savage' where people of other races were deemed superior and more noble , because they hadn't been corrupted by materialism.
@@stevencarr4002 ahhh, that's an interesting idea...not sure I like it, since it's still ranking people's, but I've never heard of it.
@@applegal3058 It was a very patronising idea.
Well yes and no. Like Rutherford says in the lecture, whilst racist ideas would not have been unusual for the time, that doesn't mean that they were universal, or that they did not receive criticism at the time. Darwin, for example, in "The Descent of Man" was highly critical of eugenics ideas, on the basis that culling of weak members of society went against the "most noblest parts of our nature".
First time I've heard someone swear during an RI lecture. I listened to this whole lecture and it was the worst one that I've listened to, very little science and a lot of moral grandstanding.
with all respect, Pearson and Fischer were great in small part of statistics. I m physicist and to analyze data in huge field of physics and chemistry we need usually other parts of statistics. Speaking of mathematical foundations of statistics, it s completely another story. So IMHO Adam looses perspective and tends to identify science = genetics. it s not true at all, with all respect.
but anyway, Grande Finale of Haldane s profile, it s something - great lecturer indeed!
can we talk about genetics and how they correlate to intelligence?
Also, to those who can't see the dislike ratio, it's currently 302 vs 188
Intelligence didn't evolve.
I can sense an oncoming storm approaching...
In this comment section.
Eugenics, sad..
Eugenics meant that babies were aborted because it was feared they might have genetic defects or illnesses. I'm glad those days are over.
It's taking him an infuriating amount of time to point out why their beliefs are affecting us today.
People of the past were racist, dead horse at this point.
But were you aware of how pervasive it was? What the long-lasting consequences were? Did you watch to the end?
@@AdityaMehendale quit at 45 minutes
@@wiseonekenobi5241well there's your problem.
@@relwalretep an indictment of the orator...
Unabashed. Thanks for the truth.
Too much reading.
Why doesn't Rutherford examine the views of African scientists working in the field of genetics to see if they were also biased in any way?
He felt 'compelled' a lot in the first 3 minutes. Yawn. And the headline on the video is seriously Politics In Science? Apparently it's ok if it's his politics.
He's presenting a lecture on his opinion.
Eugenics is important science , why we know about sickle cell et al
That was J.B.S. Haldane, who was Indian.
It's such a shame Dr Rutherford sometimes chooses to tell people to read quotes on his slides "for themselves", it's quite unfair to believe everyone is in a position to be able to read. Somewhat ironic, really...
Educated....
To be fair, I think it’s fair to assume everyone in the crowd can read considering they attend a high level institution and it is the institution that are holding this talk
In counter to this, the man was already talking for 90 minutes at pace. 😂
Oh, and he's Dr Rutherford
@@Craig-dg3loso you believe vision impaired people can not possibly be interested in attending RI-lectures?
He does not stop being Mr Rutherford just because he has a PHD.
@JackGladstoneHolroyde
Great content here.
If you got past the 8 minute mark without cringing then I feel bad for you.
Setting himself up as the victim because "angry MEN" disagree with him is so pathetic and does not make him right. Just because they point out absurddities in his point of view is not "shutting down" discussion. The fact he is trying to dismiss their opinion because they are men (as if that is in any way relevant) and he pretends that he can tell from text when people are yelling is trying to shut them down.
I can't stand hypocrites and professional victims. I won"t be watching the other hour and 16 minutes. This channel is better when it does science, not opinion and propaganda.
Your comment is some high heat frustration and anger there boi.
Read your own post as someone who doesn't care about your opinion. It's angry and hurt and it claws like a scared kitty.
Don't read it as someone who's watched the video further than up to the first trigger trap, you'll sound mostly sad.
Sublime comment nonetheless, thank you.
@@dabartos4713 Haha, you make the exact same mistake the guy in the video makes. It must be a special talent that morons believe they have to ascribe emotions to text. Your opinion says more about you than it does me. Have a nice day.
@@dabartos4713 he seems angry, yes. But you sound sad tbf
@@jesperb8626I chuckled, thanks!
@@jesperb8626 Everyone has an idol
Excellent. Thanks also to those who encouraged the overrun.
I hope the condemnation here of both right and left in the inter war/ early 20th century political sphere actually sinks in one day. Xenophobia is an ancient phenomenon but it is coupled with racist ideas and notably anti-Semitism in the years leading up to the second world war that brings the labour movement in Britain and the United States firmly in line with conservative exclusionism, preventing the immigration of refugees from fascist tyranny.
My point is that the perpetuation of racism and xenophobia was used by right wing media to manipulate the rise of UKIP and the Brexit vote. Imagining that this was a point of principle was a fatal mistake for the remain campaign. The intelligentsia in the UK, it was assumed, would reject the misinformation, the flagrantly xenophobic rhetoric and falsified statistic and that the labour movement, so recently at the cutting edge of race and gender politics would not fail to recommend remain to the rank and file.
As is pointed out here genetic heredity is still the cornerstone of racism. How much of this seething racism was coloured by our biology education and how much by the right wing press (historical connections Daily Mail and the British league of fascists etc.) I will leave to future historians but I know what I see around me is real. The ideas propagated before the holocaust have deep roots and populist right wing politics will exploit those misconceptions at every opportunity.
It is very sad that you can't see past petty accusations or racism to realise why Brexit was a success. Is it racist to not want cities over run with actual racists flying Hamas flags and openly calling for the genocide of Jews?
@@spindoctor6385 from what i've seen of brexit from way over here in america, i sincerely pray i can remain spared from any "success" like that. no i'm not religious.
@@richard_d_bird You touched on the important issue. From "way over there" you don't have an unrepresentative government making decisions that have the interests of your country way down on their list of priorities. Perhaps you would like the US to join the European Union?
@@spindoctor6385 Since "over here" has a first past the post system, congressional gerrymandering, a senate where populations of 0.6m & 39.0m have two senators a piece, numerous Presidents were elected failing to achieve a majority of the popular vote due to the electoral college, rich politicians making policy for their portfolios or beholden to corporate lobbyists & donors ; many people in the United States would argue that unrepresentative government is the norm and thoroughly baked into the Constitution.
@@nomadpurple6154 I am not exactly sure what your point is. The EU doesn't need to even bother with gerrymandering, as the people don't get to vote at all. And while the senate there is unbalanced, that serves the specific purpose of stopping people in a different state having too much power over people far removed from themselves which is the exact issue that led to England leaving the EU. The EU is just as beholden to corporate and "special interest" groups as the US parliament.
If for example the US did somehow join the EU, the current "local" issue of government corruption would not disappear, there would just be another layer of corruption even further removed from the people.
That was not even my main point here, I was pushing back on the ridiculous idea that racism had anything at all to do with Brexit. It is just a mindless insult that one side likes to throw at the other when they don't want to face the reality that their ideas or policies are generally unpopular.
This guy is a charlatan and a dishonest communicator in general. It's not good that most people uncritically buy whatever he says.
Race was not invented by Linnaeus. The idea of race goes back to prehistoric times.
It is disingenuous of you to try to charge a resent philosopher with being a racist.
When you rewrite history you should aim to get closer to the truth, NOT relabel historic figures to suite your modern ideology.
Prehistoric means before the invention of writing, so you 100% have no idea what you're talking about.
Rubbish