THE

EUGENICS REVIEWEditorial Offices: The Eugenics Society69 Eccleston Square, London, S. W.1.(Telephone-Victoria 2091.)

Editor for the Society: Miss K. Lane."Eu,enics is the science which deals with

all influences that improve the inbornqualities of a race; also with those thatdevelop them to the utmost advanta,e."Sir Francis Galton, 1904.

NOTES OF THEQUARTER

World Population and ResourcesDR. G. C. L. BERTRAM writes: It may fairlybe asserted that the recent P E P ReportWorld Population and Resources* is theleading contribution so far in this complexfield of inter-related factors. The array ofrelevant statistics is now so vast that thewritings of no one person can possibly beadequate or satisfying. Nor can any oneindividual effectively cover matters moraland ethical, biological and agricultural,demographic and economic. There is alwaysgood justification for the well-known P E Papproach to problems by the joint effort ofcapable persons of wide and varying experi-ence and knowledge. In this particularinstance more than ever has this approachbeen a necessity, and those concerned in factgave of their time and effort unstintinglyover a period of more than two years. Thediverse specialists, the P E P secretariat and,quite evidently, an outstanding chairman,have combined to produce a volume which

,.' London, I955. Political and Economic Planning.Pp. xxxvii + 339. Price 30s. Distributed by Allenand Unwin.

sets out the whole problem with a fairness,and indeed with an underlying kindliness,which has never previously been approached.The vast picture has been painted for thebenefit of leaders of all nations who have thewill to see. And for those who have the willbut not the time to study the whole, everyeffort has been made by summary and byconclusions to speed their understanding,and by direct recommendations to stimulatetheir politically practical actions.The first paragraph of " Recommenda-

tions" (pp. 323-4) may be quoted in full asa fair indication of the general tenor of thereport:

"The recommendations that follow do notpurport to solve the problem of world populationand resources. No panacea or comprehensivesolution is yet in viev. It is practicable, however,to suggest an approach and a series of definitesteps which, if taken soon, may create a basisfor ani eventual solution. There is no sovereignremedy, no short cut and above all no quickanswer. Nothing, except a sudden and immensedisaster can now prevent population rising wellabove the 3,ooo million mark in the fairly nearfuture. Nor can anything prevent many peoplewho are already hungry becoming hungrier stillowing to over-rapid increases that have alreadytaken place. All that can be hoped is that worldopinion will not persist in turning a blind eye tothe problem until inevitable misfortune becomesinevitable catastrophe."

The arrangement of parts and chapters isingenious, and designed to help those whoseinterest extends over no more than part ofthe whole field, or whose time limits them toless than full consideration. Each part hasits own conclusions. An Introduction and aSummary are followed by four parts. Thefirst is " World Population and Resources"with chapters on population growth, agricul-tural, mineral and energy resources and aneconomic section. The second part isheadel~" Nineteen Countries and Islands."

67

68 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

of greatly varied demographic type andpotential in resources, as a demonstration ofjust what is happening in these varied places.These are concise summaries of great interest.The third part is entitled " Nation andFamily," and describes demographic policiesboth expansionist and restrictive, togetherwith a most important discussion of fourfactors in population policies: (a) Migration;(b) Religious Views; (c) Birth - ControlMethods; and (d) Eugenics. The fourthpart consists of Discussion, Recommenda-tions and Conclusions.The Eugenics Society may justly take pride

in the part it has played in the production ofthis Report. The Society has subsidized thewhole work to the extent .of some £I,850,sharing the financial burden with theNuffield Foundation. The Society too hasplayed a substantial part in the productionof the report through the personal activitiesof individuals closely connected with itsleadership. Due acknowledgment to theSociety is made in the Report itself. Therehas been a good Press reception, notablebeing articles by Sir Harold Hartley inThe Times and Sir A. V. Hill in the ManchesterGuardian.

This report should be read and re-read,section by section, turning back and forth todigest and absorb the inevitably complexfactors and situations portrayed.

Just criticism of the report should surelynot extend beyond the unfortunate lack ofan index, and a division into easy sectionswhich has not quite succeeded on account ofan inadequacy in their numbering.

The Medical Officer on Problem FamiliesDR. C. P. BLACKER writes: In its issue ofDecember 30th, I955, the Medical Officerbreaks new ground. A useful leader entitled" Basic Facts on Problem Families " intro-duces the reader to two articles printedin the same issue, the first by Dr. CatherineH. Wright, assistant medical officer ofthe City of Sheffield, and the second byDr. R. C. Wofinden whose writings* are wellknown to readers of this journal.

* They include one of the Society's OccasionalPapers, Problem Families in Bristol (1950).

Dr. Catherine Wright tells us that, duringthe last few years, Sheffield's Department ofHealth has been trying to assess the numberof the city's problem families, taking specialnote of those containing children under five.A short analysis is given of the first hundredsuch families registered by health visitors.The difficulties of obtaining accurate infor-mation from the parents are well recognized;and the author is aptly reminded ofShakespeare's Seven Ages of Man:

First the infant, pallid, flabby, wrongly fed,and always ailing. Then the toddler, under-sized, unwashed, undisciplined, and untrained.Next the schoolboy, absent from school becausehis mother stays in bed till midday, alarminglyill-educated and apparently dull as a result.Then comes the lad, precociously delinquent,normally high spirited and, perhaps, abnormallydestructive, but disarmingly free from allfeeling of guilt or regret, and undeterred bypunishment. Come the late teens and with themthe unstable adolescent, the aggressive youngtough, the neurotic and sexually uninhibitedyoung female, both shallow and labile emotion-ally, lacking the maturing influence of parentsunited in their love for their children. Thenmarriage contracted inconsequently, followed byparenthood as irresponsible and inept as it isfecund. Old age may be acted out in the familyhome, crowded and over-spilling with grand-children, or, perhaps, in some common lodginghouse.

In the Sheffield series, the average numberof children per family was 5:5 and theaverage duration of marriage twelve years.At least forty-one families had children whohad some time been " in care " other thanthat provided by approved schools. " Truepoverty," present in twenty-six families, iscontrasted with " apparent poverty," beset-ting the remaining three-quarters, which wasdue to poor management on the part of themother, extravagant spending on drink orgambling, or failure on the part of the husbandto give his wife a sufficient share of the wages.Irresponsible spending and debts were character-istic of all the families.

Dr. Wright adds: " In the course ofpersonal visiting of over fifty of thesefamilies, I saw abject poverty in only two."A valuable feature of this report is the

attention given to what happens in the nextgeneration.

NOTES OF THE QUARTER 69

Of the I20 families under observation inSheffield thirty-five have children over fifteenyears of age. There are io6 such chirdren and ofthese forty-five, or 42 per cent, have alreadyappeared in court at least once. Thirty-nine ofthe over-fifteens are already married and theaverage age of marriage is low-approximatelytwenty-one years. Only nine of these marriagesare known or alleged to be satisfactory. In thecase of nine others information is not obtainableor the parents have no knowledge of thewhereabouts of the young couple-indeed in onecase the mother is unaware of her daughter'smarried name. Five of the marriages havealteady broken down. Of the remaining sixteenthe family circumstances are known to beunhappy and unsatisfactory, e.g. in seven casesthe husband has frequent changes of job, in onethe husband is in prison, and in one the wife ison probation.Dr. Wright here comments in a footnote:The above would indicate that, at the lowest

estimate, 53 per cent of the marriages contractedby the small group of thirty-nine problem familychildren are socially unsatisfactory-indeed, onecould hardly expect it to be otherwise-nevertheless problem families, being large,contribute more than their share of progeny toposterity, and the lesson to be learned is obvious.The author holds that there is a case for

central registration of these families; they" should be registered by the medical officerin the same way as handicapped andtuberculous cases are notified. This wouldbring them from the half-light of the files ofhalf a dozen different departments into thefull light of recognition."

Six measures designed to help thesefamilies and to reduce their social burden-someness are suggested. Of these, the secondis " advice in family spacing and limitation."" Where parents are willing sterilizationshould be offered." Dr. Wright holdsdefinite views about the argument that in nocircumstances should children be removedfrom their homes. She says:

It is one matter to condemn a policy whichscatters a family group and victimises thechildren of parents who are evicted for non-payment of rent, it is quite another to press forchildren to be allowed to remain in the care ofparents who encourage them to steal, whofrighten them in their quarrels and drunkenrages, who are indifferent to their attendance atschool, who feed them on white bread andmargarine and whose deplorable standards ofsexual morality are observed and understood bytheir children from their early school years.

Bristol versus RotterdamDr. R. C. Wofinden, who is Deputy Medical

Officer of Health of the City and County ofBristol, contrasts a scheme adopted inBristol with one in Rotterdam. In Bristol,problem families are periodically reviewedby a Case Committee convened (in anunusual manner particular to Bristol) by theHousing Manager and chaired by the TownClerk. This committee is served by a full-time health visitor who acts as co-ordinatingfield worker; and it makes use of a FamilyService Unit now established in Bristol.The families are rehoused in reconditionedproperties, scattered throughout the city,which the Housing Committee has placed atthe disposal of the Welfare Services Com-mittee. Furniture and furnishings are madeavailable under the Bristol Corporation Act,I950; and the same Act gives power to sendmothers and children to recuperation centres(such as Mayflower and Spofforth Halldescribed below), of which (it is hoped) onewill soon be provided in Bristol.Rotterdam's scheme, known as the

Zuidplein project, was briefly described inthe April I953 number of this journal.* Itdiffers from Bristol's by concentrating thefamilies in a suburb where vigorous effortsare made to rehabilitate them on communitylines.

Dr. Wofinden says:

This is in contrast to the Bristol policy ofspreading unsatisfactory families thinly through-out the community and trying to carry outintensive family case work within the home.The Dutch think that our policy does not helpsatisfactory training in community life, and iswasteful of staff.

The Dutch scheme costs £70 per annumper family. But " they consider this a smallprice to pay because the cost of looking after-a child apart from its parents in Hollandamounts to £2 a week; hospital costs areabout £7 to fio a week and unemploymentof the father may cost [200 a year." It is, weare told, too soon to assess and compare thetwo experiments. But the Dutch now seem

* EUGENIcS REVIEW, 45, 3-5.

70 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

to feel that their project -may call for theestablishment of a secondary enclave ofhouses for families who are in continuousneed of care. These form an intractableresidue, hampering the flow of admissions toZuidplein, and influencing adversely thosefamilies which can be fully rehabilitated.

It is to be hoped that Dr. Wofinden willcontinue to keep the Dutch project underobservation as well as his own and thathe will provide us with progress reportson both.

Intelligence of Neglectful MothersA valuable report,* comparable in some

respects to Dr. Catherine Wright's, whichwas also based on a hundred mothers, hasrecently been published by Dr. Mary D.Sheridan. Her subjects were a series of ahundred women interviewed and testedduring the six-year period March I948-June I954. These women were inmates of" Mayflower," a Salvation Army home atPlymouth with accommodation for ninemothers, and of Spofforth Hall, near Harro-gate, with (since mid-I953) four places. Bothestablishments receive mothers who havebeen placed on probation for child neglect.Of these hundred women, whose average agewas 27-21, Dr. Sheridan says that on thewhole they are " affectionate mothers andfaithful wives but thoroughly incompetenthousekeepers. While they have one or atmost two children, they usually managetheir households fairly well; but when theirfamily responsibilities outgrow their capacity,they become overwhelmed and hopelesslysubside into dirt and domestic confusion,apparently completely unable to help them-selves or to seek advice where it is available."But these hundred women were not an

unbiased sample of neglectful mothers.Some preliminary selection had been made.Admission was restricted to married womenwho had a permanent home of their own, towhich they could return and where theycould put into practice what they hadlearned; it was further restricted to those

* "The Intelligence of ioo Neglectful Mothers."B.M.J. January i4th, 1956.

who were free from tuberculosis and venerealdisease and to those who were believed notto be pregnant when admitted. In view ofthese standards which influenced admission,the findings in respect of the intelligence ofthe hundred women are somewhat sur-prising. According to Terman-Merrill testsno fewer than forty-three were dull andbackward, twenty-three were feeble-mindedand four were imbeciles-an aggregate of70 (per cent) of women subnormal inintelligence. The corresponiding figure. forthe normal population is I2-2.A further noteworthy feature of this

series is the fact that fourteen women (onein seven) had above-average test-intelligenceswith I.Q.s of 105 to I25. How far thisgroup is the product of the selective processabove mentioned is difficult to say. Thesetest-intelligent women's failure as house-wives and mothers was due to certaindefects of character which Dr. Sheridandiscusses. She says of them that they areunstable and unpredictable in their emotionsand behaviour, with a sort of gap in theirunderstanding which is difficult to define.They fail to appreciate the social effects ofwhat they do and omit to do. They do notlearn from experience. They act on the spurof the moment, recognizing no rule of life butimmediate wishes. This social unawarenessis reflected in sexual laxity. Sixty-two of thehundred women were known to have beenpregnant before marriage.

Dr. Sheridan discerns another feature-anapathy which is both physical and moral, adazed inertia reminiscent of that followingshock.

These women were followed-up. Three-quarters did well. " Seventy-six mothershave derived noticeable benefit." Some" never looked back." But " twenty-fourhave failed, usually after some initial improve-ment. The most dramatic failures in theseries were two young mothers with highintelligence. Both were social misfits fromwhom it was impossible to obtain co-operation after they had left the traininghome."As above mentioned, these were mostly

young women with an average age of 27i.

NOTES OF THE QUARTER 7I

Their ages ranged from seventeen to forty-six. Their living children ranged from oneto eleven. Against all, the charge was wilfulneglect. There were no cases of deliberatecruelty. Dr. Sheridan has substantiated herview that the problem here is primarily notpenological but medico-social.We are told that the complete findings of

this inquiry will be reported later. Data asto fertility, duration of marriage and person-ality of the husband would be interesting andwill doubtless be later given. If we may judgefrom the present report, it seems that therelative youthfulness of the mothers in thesample, and the relatively small number oftheir children, imply that while child-neglect is frequently related to the presenceof numerous children in the family, thisfactor is neither invariable nor necessary.

Unlike Dr. Catherine Wright, Dr. Sheridansuggests no social remedies in this pre-lirtiinary article, though she inversely relatesquality of performance in housewifery andchild care to the magnitude of familyresponsibilities.

Children Coming into the Care of theLocal AuthoritiesThe seventh report of the WVork of the

Children's Department of the Home Officegives figures for the year ended November30th, I954. The number of children in careon this date was 64,560, which is fewer by749 than a year before.By no means all children received into

care have neglectful or cruel parents; abouthalf are received because of difficulties in thehome, commonly confinements or illnesses ofthe mother. Many remain in care for but afew weeks.The report presents a summary of the

reasons for which children are received intocare. Thirteen such reasons are given.Much the largest of the thirteen categoriesrelates to children who were in care under afit person order. These had either committedan offence or were in need of care or protec-tion. Thirty per cent, or over I9,000 of the64,560 children, fall into this group, wherein,for several possible reasons, among them the

neglect or cruelty of parents, the localauthority has power to remove the child--from its home. The report says: " most ofthe children in care had parents who wereunable, in some instances, unwilling, toprovide satisfactorily for them."

Marriage and DivorceMR. CECIL BINNEY writes: The Report of theRoyal Commission on Marriage and Divorce*will be a disappointment to eugenists andsocial reformers and indeed to all exceptthose who are chiefly interested in inter-national law or in property rights. It bearsthe marks of a failure after a long time toreach agreement on almost all importantpoints. There will be general approval oftheir recommendation that it should be aground for divorce that the respondent hasbeen detained for five years as a mentaldefective of violent propensities and thatdivorce for incurable insanity should befurther rationalized; but their other proposalsfor extending the .grounds for divorce readlike a parody, namely that there should bedivorce for refusal to consummate themarriage (which is a change only in namesince this is now a ground for nullity) andthat men should be entitled to divorce wiveswho commit sodomy or bestiality or getthemselves artificially inseminated. Assum-ing that these proposals make any alterationin the present law, which seems doubtful,they can scarcely give rise to more than onecase in five years.'The best defence of this failure to make

any serious suggestion for change is that inpractice the present grounds of desertionand cruelty have been so extended that inalmost any case where the parties are agreedin desiring a divorce one of them can obtainit. On this basis the Commission mightreasonably advocate divorce by consentinstead of the present system by which thepetitioner, the respondent or the publicfunds pay some seventy pounds to adduceformal proof in open court of matters no oneis concerned to deny; but they are not

*London, I956. H.M.S.O. Cmd.9678. Pp. ix + 404.Price I Is. 6d.

72 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

prepared to go this far. Instead, half themembers put forward the unsatisfactorysuggestion that there should be divorce byconsent only after husband and wife havelived apart for seven years.

Of other alterations proposed in the lawas to divorce the most important andcommendable is that concerning collusion.Under the present law persons are sometimesprevented from making a reasonable arrange-ment about the children and their custodyand maintenance by the fear that this mightamount to collusion, which is an absolute barto a decree. The Commission propose thatthis should be abolished and that the partiesshould be permitted to make any agreementon these points and as to financial arrange-ments between themselves, provided thatthis is disclosed to the court and that it doesnot involve conspiracy to put forward afalse case or actual bribery to take or not todefend proceedings. This proposal almostamounts to a legalization of divorce byconsent where one party has committed amatrimonial offence.The few alterations proposed in the law of

nullity are reasonable and fairly adequate.Mental deficiency is more clearly defined:nullity on the ground of insanity is madeslightly easier and the suggestion made thatconsent by the parties to the artificialinsemination of the wife should be a bar toproceedings by either party for nullity on theground of impotence. It is a pity that theCommission did not accept the suggestionthat it should be a ground for annulling amarriage that the respondent has beensterilized.The general attitude of the Commission to

the interests of the children is that theyshould be the main matter for considerationin a divorce instead of, as they are now, pawnsin the game-and animated pawns at that,for they learn all too soon what is happeningand exploit it to their advantage. It isdoubtful however whether the Commission'sproposal that no decree should be madeabsolute until satisfactory arrangements aremade for the children is much good since therefusal of a divorce does not mean that theparties resume cohabitation together but

merely that they cannot lawfully marryothers. They do not make the obvioussuggestions that proceedings about childrenshould be properly tried with witnessesinstead of on affidavit evidence as at present,and that some steps should be taken toobviate the confusion caused by the HighCourt and the Magistrates' Courts havingconcurient jurisdiction about custody: theydo however ma-ke some sensible proposals forreforms in detail, particularly that the courtshould have jurisdiction to deal not onlywith the children of the marriage but anyother children who are prejudiced by itsbreak-up.The Commission are at least unanimous in

being in favour of marriage guidance and ofconciliation. They recognize the value of thework already being done in these directionsby voluntary organizations and very sensiblyconclude that little can be done directly bythe State by establishing official agencies,but a great deal can be done by the makingof grants out of public funds to those alreadyengaged in the work.

The Cost of the National Health ServiceAN interesting book has recently beenpublished which, if its subject does not beara direct relation to eugenics, at least describesthe general background against which eugenicpolicies in this country have to be considered.It is The Cost of the National Health Service inEngland and Wales, by Brian Abel-Smith andR. M. Titmuss.* Professor Titmuss is a Fellowof the Eugenics Society and is well known forhis former work on the Council and editorshipof the REVIEW.The authors have applied the modern

technique of social accounting to a majorsector of the social services in order toanalyse the trend of cost since the NationalHealth Service started in I948. They wereasked to do so by the National Institute ofEconomic and Social Research, on behalf ofthe Guillebaud Committee, in such a waythat the cost could be seen in proper relationto the size of the national income and could

* Cambridge University Press, I956. Pp. xx + 176.Price 27S. 6d.

NOTES OF THE QUARTER 73

be broken down into its constituent partsaccording to various methods of classifica-tion. The need for such an investigationarises from the fact that the AppropriationAccounts and other official records ofexpenditure are not, in general, well designedto form a background for discussions ofmajor policy issues. Many GovernmentDepartments, as well as non-official bodies,supplied assistance on various points and thebook, which is fully documented, has an airof authority and completeness such asbefits a White Paper rather than a privatelywritten work.

In order to clear up a very prevalentmisconception, it should be mentioned herein explanation that the National HealthService is almost entirely separate fromNational Insurance in Great Britain. Thefirst is concerned with the recruitment andremuneration of doctors, dentists and hospitalstaff, the provision of drugs and appliances,etc.; the second provides cash benefits insickness, old age and other circumstances.A part of the weekly contributions forNational Insurance is allocated to theNational Health Service, but it is only arelatively small part and this transferencedoes not justify the popular confusion on thesubject, although it may have been theoriginal cause of it.The book does not discuss the future cost

of the National Health Service-for instancethe rising cost of staff superannuation-except in one particular; in an Appendix thefinancial effects of probable changes in thecomposition of the population by age andsex are examined. The conclusions reachedare necessarily tentative, but it fortunatelyappears that only a relatively small increasein cost is likely to arise from the inevitablefurther ageing of the population in the nexttwenty years.

The First Birth-Control Clinic in theWorld

FOR some years a notice has appeared in thisjournal (in this issue it is to be found onpage 122) giving particulars of the Society forConstructive Birth Control and Racial Progress.

This society -was founded by Dr. MarieStopes and, in the notice, the claim is madethat its London clinic (at Io6-io8 WhitfieldStreet, W.i), which was opened on MarchI7th, I92I, is the first birth-control clinic inthe world in the sense that it was the first tobe established.We have received from a correspondent in

the U.S.A. an expression of doubt as towhether this statement is in fact true. It issuggested that birth-control clinics existedin Holland and Germany before I9I4; andthat some were established in the U.S.A.between I9I4 and I92I.That praiseworthy efforts were made

outside Britain before I92I to spread aknowledge of birth control to persons in needof such knowledge is not in doubt. Ourthoughts run back to Francis Place (I77I-I854) who, over ioo years ago, distributed inthis country handbills explaining the spongemethod. But Place can scarcely be said tohave established a clinic; nor can it beproperly said of doctors, midwives or nurseswho, in personal consultations, have givensuch advice, that they had founded clinics.The question clearly turns on what we

mean by a clinic; the issue is one of definition.We know of no authoritative definition of aclinic. According to its derivation (Greekkline, a bed), a clinic -should denote anestablishment with beds for patients: butthis meaning has long ago been abandoned.The following is, we think, a generally

acceptable definition:A clinic is an establishment with a broadly

medical purpose, with or without beds, which:(i) is open at fixed times or sessions;(2) has a qualified doctor or nurse in atten-

dance during sessions;(3) keeps case-notes and records;(4) publishes reports of its activities;(5) is under the control of a known and

responsible person or persons.

We think that this definition expresseswhat Dr. Stopes has in mind when she claimsthat her London clinic was the first birth-control clinic to be opened in the world, andthe first to make use of a standardizedcase-sheet. No one disputes that Dr. Stopes'sclinic was the first to be established inBritain.

74 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

If any reader of this journal can showthat, in any other country, there existedbefore March I92I a birth-control clinicwhich conforms to the above definition,Dr. Stopes, who is the last person to wish tomake an unwarranted claim, would doubtlessconsent to a re-wording of the notice of herclinic.

Russian Policy on AbortionRUSSIAN policy on abortion appears onceagain to have changed. The early Sovietcode had permitted and made provision forthe induction of abortion by State employeddoctors without charge to the patients. Itwas recognized that the number of illegaloperations was great and that economicconditions still compelled many women toresort to the termination of their pregnancies.Lorimer (quoted in World Population andResoutrces, P E P, I955, P. 205) has recordedhow extensively abortion was used as a meansof contraception in the early I930s. Theratio of abortions to live births is thought tohave reached the astonishing figure of2-7 to I in Moscow in I935. Resort toabortion was extensive in the cities ofCentral Asia as well as in those of WesternRussia.

In I936 abortions were forbidden excepton specific medical and eugenic grounds. Atthe same time steps were taken to makechildbirth easier, both by providing paidmaternity leave and family allowances, and abetter maternity and child welfare service.The effect on the birth rate was immediateand striking. In the two years from I935 toI937 the birth rate more than doubled inMoscow, while in the country as a whole itincreased from 28-6 to 38'3. There wasapparently no declaration of policy oncontraception at the time.

However, on November 23rd, I955, theSupreme Soviet issued a decree revokingthis prohibition of abortion. It was reportedin the December I955 issue of Soviet News(the journal published by the Press Depart-ment of the Soviet Embassy in London) that

the steps taken by the Soviet State to encouragemotherhood and child protection and the steadyrise in the consciousness and cultural level of

women, who are taking an active part in allspheres of the national economy and of thecultural and public life of the country, make itpossible now to withdraw juridically theprohibition of abortion, while the prevention ofabortion can be ensured by extending the State'smeasures to encourage motherhood, and mea-sures for education and enlightenment. Thewithdrawal of the prohibition of abortion willalso make it possible to eliminate the harm doneto women's health by abortions performedoutside medical establishments.

In order to give the woman herself a chanceto decide the question of motherhood, and alsoto prevent the harm done to women's health byabortions performed outside hospitals, thePresidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet hasdecreed that Article I of the decree of theCentral Executive Committee and the Council ofPeople's Commissars of the IU.S.S.R. of June27th, 1936, on the prohibition of abortion, berevoked. Operations to terminate pregnancy byartificial means are permitted only in hospitalsand other medical establishments in accordancewith the instructions of the Ministry of Healthof the U.S.S.R.

UJnder the decree it remains a criminal offencefor persons without special medical training toperform abortions and also for doctors to performabortions outside hospitals or other medicalestablishments.

It would be interesting to knowv the extentof the demands on hospitals for abortionsand how freely these requests are granted.Much will depend, presumably, on wvhethercontraceptives are cheap and readily avail-able. There appear to be no figures for theamount of contraceptives manufactured inor imported into Russia or of their cost tothe citizen.

The Fall of LysenkoIT has not always been scientifically fashion-able to ridicule the theories of ProfessorT. D. Lysenko. Eleven years ago the tideran in an opposite direction from to-day.The credit for one of the earliest presenta-

tions made in this country of the issue raisedby these theories belongs to Dr. J. R. Baker,the Secretary of the Society for Freedom inScience and for twenty-five years a Fellowof this Society. In his Science and the PlannedState (I945) Dr. Baker gave an account ofthe proceedings (available at that time in theRussian language only) of a Conference on

NOTES OF THE QUARTER 75

Genetics and. Selection held in I939 underthe- auspices of the Russian journal PodZnamenem Marxismna. The speeches thendelivered closely resembled those which wereheard in a better publicised conference heldin Moscow nine years later, of which a fulltranslation into English was provided by theRussians themselves* in a volume producedin I949 by the Foreign Language PublishingHouse, Moscow. But by 1949 the tide hadbegun to turn.

These issues have, from time to time, beendiscussed in our Notes. In one of the lasteditorialst to appear under his name,Maurice Newfield set forth the backgroundto this story.The Russian Academy of Science, founded

under the auspices of Peter the Great in I725,was modelled on the Royal Society ofLondon, which had then been in existencefor some seventy-five years. In I925 it wasremodelled as the Academy of Science of theU.S.S.R. but still retained the traditions ofits original foundation, and to be elected toits honorary membership was considered tobe a high distinction by foreign scientists.This honour was conferred on Sir HenryDale, then President of the Royal Society, in1942 and in the same year the Sovietgeneticist Nicholas Ivanovitch Vavilov waselected one of the fifty foreign members ofthe Royal Society, although reports hadalready reached London that he had fallen-from favour with those in political power.But it was not until I945 that the RoyalSociety, after repeated inquiries, learnt thatVavilov had been dismissed from his position,had disappeared with a number of hisco-workers and had died at some unknowndate between I94I and I943. In the words ofSir Henry Dale on his resignation from theAcademy:

The late N. I. Vavilov has been replaced byT. D. Lysenko, the advocate of a doctrine ofevolution which, in effect, denies all the progressmade by research in that field since Lamarck'sspeculations appeared early in the nineteenthcentury.... This is not the result of an honestand open conflict of scientific opinions; Lysenko'sown claims and statements make it clear that

* The Situation in Biological Science.t EUGENICS REVIEW, 40, 175-8.

his dogma has been established and enforced bythe Central Committee of the CommunistParty as conforming to the political philosophyof Marx and Lenin.

In I950+ we reviewed the literature of theLysenko controvery and quoted from Dr.Julian Huxley's summing up :§

So far as I am aware, in modern times it isonly in the U.S.S.R. . . that science has lostits inherent intellectual autonomy, in the sensethat the admissibility of its theories, laws andfacts is judged not on their scientific merits butin relation to political and philosophicaldoctrines, and research and scientific thoughtare subordinated to the directives of a politicalparty.As a direct consequence, science as a whole has

lost its unity. It is no longer in essentials aworld activity, that is, one transcending thepartial frameworks of nationalism and religion,but has become split into two.... The Russianshave now succeeded in splitting it into Soviet,Marxist, Communist or materialistic science asagainst foreign, bourgeois, capitalist or idealistscience.

In August and September I953 uncon-firmed reports of Lysenko's fall from gracefiltered through the iron curtain, and in I954it was learnt that N. S. Kruschev, FirstSecretary of the Central Committee of theParty, had heavily criticized the previouspolicy of the Ministry of Agriculture; and onMarch 29th of that year the official journalof the Communist Party said " The monopo-lization of science leads . . . to the cuttingoff of people who do not think on orthodoxlines, and living scientific thought is stifled.This has been shown, for instance, in theAll Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences."Now in 1956, under the date line Moscow,

April gth, The Times quotes Tass as announc-ing that Lysenko had been relieved of hisduties. His successor is P. P. Lobanov, whowas last May appointed deputy Premier incharge of agricultural questions. It may betoo much to hope for a complete reversal ofSoviet scientific policy in the immediatefuture, but we would seem to be justified inexpecting some modification of the extremeopinions which have prevailed in the U.S. S.R.during the last fifteen years.

Ibid, 41, 159-62.§ Nature, June i8th and 25th, 1949.

76 THE EUGENICS REVIEW

Our ContributorsI

E. T. ASHTON, M.A., B.Sc.MR. E. T. ASHTON was educated at JesusCollege, Oxford, where he received the M.A.degree in Modern History. The B.Sc. inSociology, and the Diploma in PublicAdministration were later awarded fromLondon University.From I935 until I94i he was engaged in

social welfare work (N.A.B. and localgovernment); he served in the Royal Navyfrom I94I to I947 and at present holds therank of Lieutenant-Commander, R.N.V.R.In I947 he took up his present post asLecturer in Sociology at SouthamptonUniversity.

His publications include articles in SocialWork, Social Service, Highway, Case Con-ference and Marriage Guidance. He wasco-author with P. Ford and C. J. Thomas ofProblem Families in Southampton (I955) andhis Trends in Nineteenth Century BritishSocial Work, writ-ten iin collaboration withA. F. Young, will appear in the autumn inRoutledge and Kegan Paul's InternationalLibrary of Sociology.

Miss E. M. CREAK, M.D., F.R.C.P., D.P.M.DR. MILDRED CREAK was from I930 untilI939 physician in charge of the children'sdepartment and Lecturer in Child Psychiatryat the Maudsley Hospital, and during thatperiod spent a year in the U.S.A. on aRockefeller travelling scholarship. Duringthe second world war she was in theEmergency Medical Service at Mill Hill andlater in the R.A.M.C., working on officers'selection for the women's forces, in thiscountry and in India. Since then she hasdirected the Department of PsychologicalMedicine at the Hospital for Sick Children,Great Ormond Street. Her publicationsinclude joint authorship of the section on" Functional Diseases of the NervousSystem " in Garrod, Batten and Thursfield'sDiseases of Children and a number ofarticles in medical journals.

RICHARD RUMBOLDMr. Richard Rumbold was educated in

England, France and Germany and servedduring the War as a pilot in the R.A.F.Under the pseudonym of Richard Lumfordhe has written an autobiographical novel,My Father's Son*, and collaborated withLady Margaret Stewart in a biography ofthe French airman and writer, Antoine deSaint-Exupery. He has also written anumber of articles and broadcast plays. Mr.Rumbold has been living in Ceylon for sometime and is at present engaged on a book aboutthe Far East, where he is now travelling.

S. G. SINGLETONMR. S. G. SINGLETON was born in London,where he spent his early childhood until hisparents moved to Hampshire when the oldL.S.W.R. moved their railway works fromNine Elms, London, to Eastleigh, Hants. Hewas educated at Peter Symonds School,Winchester, and University College, South-ampton. In I923 he was appointed assistantmaster at Andover, and took an activepart in the Co-operative Movement as aspare time interest. In I934 he was appointedheadmaster of a county primary school inNorth Hants (Nether Wallop) and alsolectured for L.E.A. in Economic Geographyand Local Government. He became head-master of Abbotswood School at Totton,Southampton, in I940. This school has over620 pupils. His co-operative activities hadto cease but he continued L.E.A. work andalso organized and ran youth clubs with atotal membership of about 300 throughoutthe war.

Mr. Singleton has served for many yearsas a member of the Teachers' AdvisoryCommittee to the Hants County Council; andis a teachers' representative on the HantsCounty Council Youth Advisory Committeeand on the Hants County Council Children'sCommittee; he has been chairman of theCounty Primary Head Teachers' Conferencesince its inception in I95I.

In other local government activities heis a member of the New Forest RuralDistrict Council and is vice-chairman of theCouncil's Advisory Committee. Totton itself,

* 1949. Cape. See EUGENICS REVIEW, 41, 50.

NOTES OF THE QUARTER 77

with a population of i6,ooo, has only aparish council, of which Mr. Singleton ischairman.

Mr. Singleton is married with grown upfamily of two sons and one daughter, all ofwhom have entered the teaching professionand have teaching posts in Hampshire.

OBITUARY

Joan Malleson, M.B., B.S.IT is with deep regret that we record theaccidental death in Fiji on May I4th, I956,of Dr. Joan Malleson while on her way backto England after four months in NewZealand under an exchange of practicesscheme.

Dr. Malleson was born in I900, receivedher medical training at Charing CrossHospital and took the M.B., B.S. London inI926. At the start of her career, clinicalwork in Holborn and at the West EndHospital for Nervous Diseases brought hometo her the fact that anxiety and ignorance onthe part of her patients were in many casesthe causes of their sexual difficulties, andbooks published under the pseudonym of" Medica " were of undoubted help tocouples with marital difficulties.Her work for the Family Planning Associa-

tion and the Islington Family PlanningClinic is well known. She became a Fellowof the Eugenics Society in I944.

MRS. NANCY RAPHAEL writes: JoanMalleson was an exceptional human being.

She had a quality of magnificence which israrely encountered, and she combined in hernature diverse and contrasting attributeswhich went to make up a personality ofuncommon enchantment.

She was above all a medical woman.Medicine with all its implications was theground bass above which the rich harmonyof friendships and pursuits was played out.

These tastes and pursuits were manyindeed: food and clothes, pictures andmusic, archaeology and poetry and theSussex Downs-all were enjoyed and withzest.

For friendship she had a rare talent. Herappreciative delight in her friends impelledthem to become what she believed them tobe. Her encouragement converted poten-tiality into performance. And yet, if thewhole truth be told, she loved her friends forwhat they were: no one was less critical orcondemning, less didactic or pontifical. Itwas simply that she perceived the essence andknew what could be achieved.A steely determination underlay the

gentle and sympathetic manner and she wasa great fighter for the causes in which shebelieved. Her work over many years for theFamily Planning Association was of anotable quality. She wrote and lectured,attracted new workers and inspired all withwhom she came into contact.Many mourn her today and feel their lives

impoverished by her going, but it is well toremember that she lit lights and kindledfires among patients, friends and colleaguesthat will not be extinguished.