Adam Rutherford | A Scientific Scandal | Edinburgh International Book Festival

In 2020, Francis Galton’s name was removed from University College London buildings. The "father of eugenics" had authored theories of selective procreation used to justify racism and genocide.
Discussing his book 'Control: The Dark History and Troubling Present of Eugenics', geneticist Adam Rutherford examines its continuing effects on people’s lives. His previous nonfiction blockbusters include 'The Book of Humans' and 'How to Argue with a Racist'.
📚 EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL BOOK FESTIVAL 2022 📚
The 2022 Book Festival programme featured 600 in-person and online events for adults, children and teens. Over 550 authors, performers, musicians and thinkers joined us from across the world to share their stories, ideas and perspectives.
If you enjoyed this event, find out ways you can support us here: www.edbookfest.co.uk/support-us.
Watch more events from the 2022 Book Festival: bit.ly/3ZgIFWk.
▶️ SUBSCRIBE ▶️
Subscribe to our channel to be notified when our new videos are live and to watch more videos like this: bit.ly/3UJ8b3H.
💬 FOLLOW 💬
Website: www.edbookfest.co.uk/
Facebook: bit.ly/3F7fWs0
Twitter: bit.ly/3JLmdwK
Instagram: bit.ly/3HCoubO
TikTok: bit.ly/3xRCGuX
LinkedIn: bit.ly/3JOagGQ

[@michellebothe2427]

Is there a study of the impact of toxic chemicals in our food and our surroundings as well as noise media etc on our genetics, (thinking of cluster of disease like cancer, parkinson, autism)? We worry about race when really those seems more of a threat.

[@robertramsay5963]

Wouldn't the overall population benefit if children were taught in school how to be an effective and loving parent? It can't be assumed that everyone is going to grow up in a family where proper parenting is modelled.

[@marcodallolio9746]

Human development is too complex and non-linear a process to be predictable or controllable. A mandatory parenting class could solve some common and basic issues in today's parenting styles, but create new unforeseen ones. Also, most of the emotional/relational aspects in the parents that will ultimately affect children's development are unconscious, or so deeply rooted they are not going to be solved with a class. Humanity is not solvable.

[@garyprice6504]

Now we all are a 'global village' courtesy of the internet. It is hard to realise how segregated the world was. I have listened to his pitch, as he plugs it on the 'web'.. It seems just as weighted to a target audience as probably anything published. He'll be on Bridgerton next...

[@justaname999]

I don't know what you mean by "he'll be on Bridgerton next" as in I wouldn't know what this burn is supposed to mean, but in terms of being weighted, in a way, yes... and? he is not saying that he is somehow *apolitical* by saying that science is inherently always political. However, he is generally pointing out *how* the politics of the time, place, person guide their scientific pursuits. But that in and of itself doesn't make his dismantling of some assumptions wrong. He is never claiming that Galton or Fisher or other grandfathers of modern statistics devised inappropriate methods because they didn't. They were mathematically pretty good and useful, which is why we still use them (to an extent, depending on what you work on) but he rightfully points out what they were driven by and how some of that was very wrong and misguided. That is not a burn. They did not know better in some cases and were driven by a particular racist view in other cases, for which they are to blame more or less, because, again, they might not have known better or had the tools do know better due to the isolation and lack of resources you point out.

[@thepyrrhonist6152]

wayists...bof of dem

[@Marc-io8qm]

Is this the guy who doesn’t believe races are different? Look how different he looks to the interviewer! No such thing as race?? How can anyone take someone like this seriously? Many scientists have been called out the last 5 years and rightfully so. We should do our best to challenge these ideologues.

[@nycbearff]

You are misrepresenting what he says. He says that there are many differences between people and between groups of people, but that none of those differences map to racial categories. Geneticists can't find any evidence that any of the various definitions of races map to actual humans. When you look at claims about racial differences closely, they fall apart. Genes that allow adults to drink milk exist in many groups defined as different "races". Genes for specific skin tones exist in many groups defined as different "races". Genes that cause sickle cell anemia exist in many groups defined as different "races". There are no bundles of separate racial characteristics within human populations. So - lots of differences, but no races. The whole theory of race has been soundly debunked. If you want to "call out" scientists, you'd better have some actual facts to back up your claims. Saying "hey, this guy looks different from the person interviewing him, so that proves that the theory of race is correct" is just ignorant. There are no actual facts in your attack on Rutherford, while he has a mountain of high quality research backing up everything he says.

[@stevencarr4002]

@@nycbearff 'Geneticists can't find any evidence that any of the various definitions of races map to actual humans' A drop of saliva can be analysed and it will confirm the self-reported race of that person with 99% accuracy. Of course, it can't tell you if that person is transgender or not, because that doesn't exist as a biological reality.

[@JanefleesTexas]

@@stevencarr4002 No, dear… you don’t understand how this works.

[@JanefleesTexas]

@@stevencarr4002 “Biological reality”…lol OMG 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@stevencarr4002]

@@JanefleesTexas You don't understand how evolution works. Darwin showed that if organisms are in different environments, then their offspring are selected for that environment. The environment drives evolution, not genes. Darwin had no concept of genes, and the theory of natural selection does not need genes to work, no more than Faraday's laws of electromagnetism requires knowledge of electrons to be a correct theory (Faraday had no more idea of electrons than Darwin did of genes)

[@SG-lighthouse]

The man with CP had a beautiful statement and drew the obvious line to euthanasia that I guess went over Adam’s head lol I love listening to Adam Rutherford but sometimes he’s a bit goofy and quick to speak. Especially cutting off Dr. Curry at the end of the interview portion. 🫠 But fr loved this talk.

[@justaname999]

To be fair, what Rutherford said, very appropriately, is "I do not know" and that is 100% what he *should* say given that it is NOT his topic. Speculating on a topic he hasn't studied is always less welcome than that! That is something many others do, e.g. Dawkins talking out of his rear saying "say what you want about the ethics, but genetically, eugenics works" which completely ignores so many issues that are not per se related to the moral and ethical issues with eugenics. In this case, if by "went over his head" you mean that he failed to mention that euthanasia *could* be used in a nefarious way by the same people who would endorse eugenics, maybe. But in that case, speaking of "euthanasia" would be at the very least questionable in and of itself. What do we mean, then, when we use this word? If we understand it to be any ending of another life in the name of ending suffering, then that leaves a lot of room for what the person who made the comment said. And that is what has happened in the past. But I'd argue that this is a willful misuse of the word. This is probably why the topic is such a hotly debated one. If a person makes a decision to seek an end to their life, that surely is a different case from when a person who is personally not affected by an illness or disability seeks to decide for others, who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions that they are "in an unbearable state of suffering" and that person would then step in to end another person's life. What the nazis did to people with disabilities should, in my opinion, not be called euthanasia, although I know that people do call it that and this is where eugenics and euthanasia link up to this day. It's problematic, yes. But Rutherford is not an expert on this, so he rightfully passed on answering.

[@cimmerian_savage9736]

Regardless, when you tell a clustering algorithm to group people based on genetic data (and the parameter for separating humans into distinct groups is set to the right level), you get the socially defined races with practically perfect accuracy. This is exemplified by a genetic cluster analysis of 3636 people grouping people into 4 categories who identified as white, Asian, black, or Hispanic. Only 5 of those people fit into a category different to that of their self-identified race (Tang, 2004) The algorithm GRAF-pop is able to predict individual ancestry with high accuracy (Yumi, 2019) See Also: Race 101: Genetics Glossary.

[@nycbearff]

This is just false. It's racist propaganda. Sure, if you manipulate your small sample group, your criteria, and your statistical analysis just right, you can "prove" just about anything you want. And if you assume that extended kin groups belong to a specific "race", you can then, of course, assign a "race" to members of that extended kin group. But this is not science - it's using the form of science, without the rigor of science, to prop up claims that have been soundly debunked by a large body of actual scientific research. Travel through Latin America, and then come back and tell us how "hispanic" is a race. Travel through Africa and then come back and tell us how "black" is a race. There are vast differences in every human characteristic between supposed members of those "races" you claim are real. Seriously, this is pure crap.

[@JanefleesTexas]

lol… so much about this.. just 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@JanefleesTexas]

@@nycbearffThank you! For some reason I didn’t see your response on the regular comments page, just “new comments”… but exactly right

[@cimmerian_savage9736]

@@JanefleesTexas This is tactical nihilism.

[@cimmerian_savage9736]

@@JanefleesTexas An individual’s physical characteristics (phenotype) is determined by their genes (genotype). In other words, how you look is a direct expression of your DNA. This is why Chinese babies don’t randomly pop out of Australian Aboriginal parents, Estonian babies don’t randomly pop out of Ugandan parents, and so on.

[@zapre2284]

Hes about as scientific as John Barnes

[@JanefleesTexas]

And you are a geneticist? Biologist? Professor of…?

[@justaname999]

@@JanefleesTexas Professor of Racism, probably. It's a 1-month online degree. Many seem to have taken it.

[@JanefleesTexas]

@@justaname999 Ha! Thank you! 🤣 I always dread the replies under these type of videos. I think Professor of Racism online degree requires sh^t-posting under any video of legitimate scientists…Ironically, because of the hate I’ve read two of Dr Adam Rutherford’s books already. 😊

[@justaname999]

@@JanefleesTexas I was surprised to see the comment sections. I heard him at a conference and learned that he has a "pop science" side and an online presence, so I checked out the content. Did not expect these comments sections :D