Psychiatric genetics and prejudice: can the science be separated from the scientist?
Psychiatric genetics and prejudice: can the science be separated from the scientist?
复制标题
精神病遗传学和偏见：科学可以与科学家分开吗？
DOI：
10.1038/sj.mp.4000381
复制
发表时间：
1998
影响因子：
11
通讯作者：
Baron,M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baron,M
The legacy of Ernst Rüdin (1874–1952), a German psychiatrist and geneticist implicated in eugenic compulsory sterilization and ‘euthanasia’during the Nazi reign, received close scrutiny in a recent series of articles. Kendler and Zerbin-Rüdin1–3 extolled Rüdin’s scientific contributions and lamented the fact that the continental tradition of psychiatric genetics is not fully appreciated in the anglophonic world. Two companion editorials4–5—an apparent stab at evenhandedness—placed Rüdin’s work in the context of his political activism but did little to calm the disquiet caused by Kendler and Zerbin-Rüdin, whose papers drew harsh criticism from several authors. 6–8 Kendler and Zerbin-Rüdin’s critics considered their views a whitewash of Rüdin’s racism and the destructive effects of his scientific work, and a misguided attempt at his scientific rehabilitation. Responding to his critics, Kendler9 admitted to ‘his modest familiarity with the later history of the Rüdin school and their relationship with the Nazis,’and acknowledged that ‘this relation... has cast a pale over Rüdin’s work.’He nevertheless painted the criticisms as unduly harsh and took issue with some of the key points raised by his critics, in particular the suggestion that Nazi-tainted data should be expunged from the scientific corpus or cited only if accompanied by discussions of historical context. An accompanying editorial10 acknowledged the past crimes of our discipline and encouraged confrontation with the facts to contend ‘comfortable ignorance’and to enhance our field’s resolve never to repeat its past transgressions.Evidently, this topic has touched deep emotional currents. Just as importantly, it has raised questions vital to the integrity of our field, which were not fully addressed in the foregoing debate. In what follows, I consider these issues further. My arguments are informed both by the recent exchange of views on this topic as well as by other, more inclusive sources. 11–14. Kendler9 frames a key point of the debate by arguing
