Interesting and thought provoking. I would say that some of those eugenically influenced 'ideas' are very much present in our political parties today. In a class ridden society the most powerful who strangely coincidentally happen to be the richest have very definite ideas of who should be thrown on the societal scrap heap (users of food banks, warmth banks, the disabled, the sick and unfortunate, the poor children born to the sick and unfortunate, different races entirely dependent on wealth qualification, refugees, the homeless, etc). Yes, science is political and we should all be aware of that, because advances won't necessarily concentrate on solving the problems I mentioned, it's likely because of those in power to further disenfranchise the weakest. I think science advancement should go hand in hand with a 'moral watchdog committee'.
The strangest thing about the European scientific community is that their most notable scientists spent more time on falsely proving supremacy than on the marvel of real science, which is, by nature, the very essence discovery. And, moreover, they proudly touted intelligence while propagating false information through the ages. I cringe when I think about the mutilation of archeological discoveries in Egypt, all in the name of preserving the idiology of supremacy. I am sure if they found the Holy grail with a pic of the Hebrew who drank from it, they would have melted it down and hidden its remains.
You have to have a soul to be truly moral. The rich and powerful usually lack souls. Jesus said, “it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:31
The intersection of DNA research and politics has a complex history, particularly when we consider the story of eugenics. Historically, eugenics movements have used genetic science to justify discriminatory policies, raising ethical concerns about the misuse of genetic information. As we advance in our understanding of genomics and personalized medicine, how can we ensure that the lessons from the eugenics era are applied to prevent misuse in contemporary genetics research and policy-making? What safeguards can be implemented to protect against the potential exploitation of genetic information for harmful purposes? I’m interested in exploring how we can balance scientific progress with ethical considerations to prevent history from repeating itself.
I always like a bit of humour sprinkled throughout a presentation. I decided not to watch live at 4am here (Eastern Australia), but it was like a book you can't put down...I kept grabbing a few minutes here and there, then listened to the rest as I drove home and finished it off at home just now!
Thank you Dr. Rutherford for this important historical review! It's an excellent fundamental first edition of the Attenborough Prize Lecture! May I suggest one task for your to-do list: change the word 'William' to 'Winston' on the slide that shows Churchill's photo as a youngish MP. Thanks again, from your superfan in urban Minnesota, USA.
I thought this was about the DNA of politics!!! Nope, it's about Adam Rutherfiord talking about himself and how great the BBC is [I mean WAS]. Haven't watched it for two years now and don't miss it one little bit!🥵
The practice of eugenics is still happening when it comes to children with Down Syndrome. In Iceland there are few people with the syndrome as most are aborted before birth.
Suppose it was known that in a given year 90% of the babies about to be born would have Down’s syndrome. Would you be ok allowing these babies to be born? The consequences would be catastrophic for that generation.
If you enjoyed this talk and are keen for more, please subscribe to our channel for exciting science videos and live events: bit.ly/3fQIFXB Don't forget to leave a like 👍 and a comment as well!
One of the best talks I’ve watched. I’m mostly watching topics closer to physics but mostly because it has less baggage and is a little more fact based. Hard math with a lot less assumptions. Fantastic talk and has brought back my interest in biology.
Very good summary of the history of eugenics, but one little thing: it was Indiana, not Arizona, that enacted the first sterilization law in 1907. You can correct that on your next presentation 😉
I've read every book by Adam Rutherford and find him immensely informative. But admittedly I'd want it to be more technical. I do agree with Adam on the subject of psychology, I don't view it as a science either.
To say that one set of genes is superior to another set of genes is like saying that the clothes worn by Eskimos are superior to the clothes worn by Mexicans. It makes no sense. All you can say is that some things are better adapted to some environments than other things.
Palestine for the Palestinians! Tibet for the Tibetans! Iraq for the Iraqis! England for anyone and everyone but the English because like ‘what are the English anyway’! ✊
I want to make a comment about Theodore Roosevelt, the president. He was diagnosed with polio, which would make him sickly Granted, this happened I think when he was 35, Now with eugenics. Wouldn't that make him undesirable?
I would assert that Science itself is apolitical. Those who investigate science are influenced by the nature of the environment in which they reside and in which they have been raised. The one truth about science, is that we do not fully understand it yet. Thank you for an interesting and thought provoking lecture, wish it had been permitted to continue for longer. I was asked by a colleague, "In which religion do you believe?" My reply was, Science. At this she was confused and asked "How can you believe in something which keeps changing?" I replied " it only keeps changing because we don't understand it yet".
Excellent, thank you. (Although a historian would be far less subjective... I suppose a historian would also be useless in a science lab) But you left out the Romani peoples... As they always have been, left out. Dr. Ian Hancock YT lecture, "Porrajamos", great summary of the "science", and the Laws enacted, all based on logic & the science of the day towards some utopia, enlightening!
An historian would claim to be less subjective and their use of language might imply they are more objective but it’s window dressing. Historians are hugely subjective because history is subjective. Just look at the study of Winston Churchill and the most recent books around him.
Does albinoism answer some of the mystery of dark to light skinned people? I saw a show about families with two albino parents and it seemed to be passed down generations as easily as and other family trait. This has made for a good afternoon.
No, it doesn't. Albinism is caused by a mutation that results in the affected individuals being unable to produce any melanin pigment in their skin (& hair, & eyes) at all. People who have light skin produce less pigment than dark-skinned folk, but their skin is still pigmented.
When the sentient AI swallow our multiverse, se will generate a black hole and migrate to other galaxies. And we will be in the belly of a ghost monster.
Just read ‘How to Argue with a Racist’ Fascinated by people’s obsession with race. Generally I find it’s people who are insecure in their own identity who can be bothered to hate on others. What I read was an apologist for fruit of the poisoned tree genetics. So disappointed. On the one hand he argues that that there’s so many cultural/social influences that genetics is something in flux, yet on the other hand “let the ‘science’ lead where it may.” “Science is political”, well I guess it all depends on what you mean by political, but in which case it’s impossible for science to lead where it may. Who exactly has benefited from genetics to date? What exactly does it help us understand? I had so many issues with so many assertions he made, particularly with how genetics is in any way, shape or form helpful to the future of the human race. Take his championing of IQ tests and his derision of the idea of all they test is how well you can do IQ tests, yet in the next breath saying IQ is something in flux… Personally I prize emotional intelligence and kindness over “if blah is 16 and blah is a quarter of her age, at what age will she become twice blah’s age?” Who gives a shit and how does that translate into a beautifully kind human being? That’s a messed up value system right there. Don’t even get me started on sports and music… all predicated on some what’s/who’s best, most ‘successful’ value system with acceptable competition at it’s root. Competition, that capitalist middle class construct? Hmmm As an artist looking at humankind, we can only ever imagine what we can imagine within our given parameters, we are only where we are because of what’s gone before (hidden swastikas and everything) and there is no truth, it’s all a matter of perspective… and yes that goes for scientists too. One world, one love, no borders ✌🏾❣️
6:18 the quality of science in the media might be better than at any point in history. But it's awful. From pop sci youtube channels to main stream media, the science is terrible. There's an entire genre of debunkers who could spend the rest of their lives pointing out bad science in the media.
So disappointed to hear that you felt you should step down from inside science for someone else based on their identity markers - skin colour and number of X chromosomes.
34:00-ish I've hated Lawrence as a writer since 'O'-level English Lit, but it was purely personal. Nice to have a more objective reason to dislike him.
@super cute That is just denialism, possibly indicative of historical ignorance, or just a desire to confuse people as to your motivations. Eugenics as a movement very much had to do with racism, both in Germany and the USA. They are, historically, as bound together as conjoined twins. Edit: Oh, that's interesting. My notification says your handle is "Eugenicist", not "super cute", as it is here. I have to say, the original seems more accurate.
@Rectus The more you repeat racist rhetoric, the less convincing you are when you say you're not a racist. "Weakening the species to destruction" is not a real thing.
@Rectus 🎵Plato, they say, could stick it away/ Half a crate of whiskey every day🎶 Meanwhile, the Spartans also practiced pedophilia; are you recommending that as a practice?
@Rectus Great use of the fallacy fallacy, achievement unlocked! But slightly more seriously, _Cutie whatever_ is just posting to advocate for scientific racism, so more than a touch of mockery is deserved. Just because she knows one tiny factette about eugenics history from ancient times doesn't actually address the fact that she's wilfully ignorant of more recent history, and why that recent history (if you can call 75-100 years ago 'recent') has pissed all over her badly memorised apologia. We fought a war over this shit, so it really is her job to do due diligence and read a bit more widely than Tucker Carlson or similar ideologues, if she doesn't want to get beaten up online by snowflakes like me and get laughed at by the other racists. Also, her line about destroying the species is pure fantasy; _Game of Thrones_ was more convincing, and that had dragons in it. Edit: Oh, you're _Rectus_ now! Sorry, I didn't clock that you were doing that old troll thing of continually changing your handle, and thought you were someone else. Just substitute "you" for "she" above, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.
There may be an ideal, platonic "science" that is apolitical, no doubt practiced by shining golden beings of enlightened reason. But those people are not us, and our version is very much influenced by us being the emotional, passionate monkeys we are.
The irony is not lost on me that “thee royal society” would be holding a lecture on eugenics, and no one is the wiser
It Gal(ls me a)ton.
Seems kinda sus, huh? 🤔
@@michaelplace5740 ok. I see what you did there. "Francis Galton"...
Interesting and thought provoking. I would say that some of those eugenically influenced 'ideas' are very much present in our political parties today. In a class ridden society the most powerful who strangely coincidentally happen to be the richest have very definite ideas of who should be thrown on the societal scrap heap (users of food banks, warmth banks, the disabled, the sick and unfortunate, the poor children born to the sick and unfortunate, different races entirely dependent on wealth qualification, refugees, the homeless, etc). Yes, science is political and we should all be aware of that, because advances won't necessarily concentrate on solving the problems I mentioned, it's likely because of those in power to further disenfranchise the weakest. I think science advancement should go hand in hand with a 'moral watchdog committee'.
The strangest thing about the European scientific community is that their most notable scientists spent more time on falsely proving supremacy than on the marvel of real science, which is, by nature, the very essence discovery. And, moreover, they proudly touted intelligence while propagating false information through the ages. I cringe when I think about the mutilation of archeological discoveries in Egypt, all in the name of preserving the idiology of supremacy. I am sure if they found the Holy grail with a pic of the Hebrew who drank from it, they would have melted it down and hidden its remains.
I think so Humanity as a whole should join the club if the moral watchdog.
You have to have a soul to be truly moral. The rich and powerful usually lack souls. Jesus said, “it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:31
50:00 I’ve got the happiness gene because I’m aryan and Nordic. Screw you brown people with your depression genes TRUE AND BASED
Agree, interesting comment Thankyou
The intersection of DNA research and politics has a complex history, particularly when we consider the story of eugenics. Historically, eugenics movements have used genetic science to justify discriminatory policies, raising ethical concerns about the misuse of genetic information.
As we advance in our understanding of genomics and personalized medicine, how can we ensure that the lessons from the eugenics era are applied to prevent misuse in contemporary genetics research and policy-making? What safeguards can be implemented to protect against the potential exploitation of genetic information for harmful purposes? I’m interested in exploring how we can balance scientific progress with ethical considerations to prevent history from repeating itself.
I always like a bit of humour sprinkled throughout a presentation. I decided not to watch live at 4am here (Eastern Australia), but it was like a book you can't put down...I kept grabbing a few minutes here and there, then listened to the rest as I drove home and finished it off at home just now!
Glad you enjoyed it, Miriam!
@@royalsociety sure did!
Thank you Dr. Rutherford for this important historical review! It's an excellent fundamental first edition of the Attenborough Prize Lecture! May I suggest one task for your to-do list: change the word 'William' to 'Winston' on the slide that shows Churchill's photo as a youngish MP. Thanks again, from your superfan in urban Minnesota, USA.
I thought this was about the DNA of politics!!! Nope, it's about Adam Rutherfiord talking about himself and how great the BBC is [I mean WAS]. Haven't watched it for two years now and don't miss it one little bit!🥵
The practice of eugenics is still happening when it comes to children with Down Syndrome. In Iceland there are few people with the syndrome as most are aborted before birth.
How did you survive after birth, certainly with a great deal of help, and probably for almost all your childhood you were helped by someone
@COMMIE enlighten us on how you breastfed yourself. That’s amazing.
Suppose it was known that in a given year 90% of the babies about to be born would have Down’s syndrome. Would you be ok allowing these babies to be born? The consequences would be catastrophic for that generation.
@@beejumittahb8527 to the chagrin of the world...
This is so true 😢
If you enjoyed this talk and are keen for more, please subscribe to our channel for exciting science videos and live events: bit.ly/3fQIFXB Don't forget to leave a like 👍 and a comment as well!
One of the best talks I’ve watched. I’m mostly watching topics closer to physics but mostly because it has less baggage and is a little more fact based. Hard math with a lot less assumptions. Fantastic talk and has brought back my interest in biology.
Very good summary of the history of eugenics, but one little thing: it was Indiana, not Arizona, that enacted the first sterilization law in 1907. You can correct that on your next presentation 😉
The phrase of "triumph of science" regarding gain of function research most likely leading to a global pandemic bites a bit.
Very good. 😊
Brilliant lecture! I could have easily listened to another hour 🤎
I've read every book by Adam Rutherford and find him immensely informative. But admittedly I'd want it to be more technical.
I do agree with Adam on the subject of psychology, I don't view it as a science either.
50:08 - one minor quibble. The photograph supposedly of H. H. Goddard is actually of a different scientist, rocket pioneer Robert Goddard.
To say that one set of genes is superior to another set of genes is like saying that the clothes worn by Eskimos are superior to the clothes worn by Mexicans.
It makes no sense.
All you can say is that some things are better adapted to some environments than other things.
Thanks for this! 👏🏾👏🏽👏🏻👏
Palestine for the Palestinians! Tibet for the Tibetans! Iraq for the Iraqis! England for anyone and everyone but the English because like ‘what are the English anyway’! ✊
How do we figure out which present day scientific beliefs will be absurd in the furure?
Look at who is funding the research and who is promoting its findings.
I want to make a comment about Theodore Roosevelt, the president. He was diagnosed with polio, which would make him sickly Granted, this happened I think when he was 35, Now with eugenics. Wouldn't that make him undesirable?
I never heard that Theodore was so diagnosed with polio. It was his nephew-in-law Franklin
How modern. Very current events.
Accept people as they are. Narcopaths are the most imperfect humans!
Congratulations 🎉👏👏👏
I wonder what the ferocious feminists think of the elites in general. I would love to watch it.
I would assert that Science itself is apolitical. Those who investigate science are influenced by the nature of the environment in which they reside and in which they have been raised. The one truth about science, is that we do not fully understand it yet.
Thank you for an interesting and thought provoking lecture, wish it had been permitted to continue for longer.
I was asked by a colleague, "In which religion do you believe?"
My reply was, Science.
At this she was confused and asked "How can you believe in something which keeps changing?"
I replied " it only keeps changing because we don't understand it yet".
Science is NOT a religion. Please don't believe in Science. Grazie ;-)
Scientism is for mid wits. Your comment is proof enough of this.
I would assert that believing that is unscientific.
Your religion then is not science but reality. Science is the method of knowing reality
Excellent, thank you. (Although a historian would be far less subjective... I suppose a historian would also be useless in a science lab)
But you left out the Romani peoples... As they always have been, left out. Dr. Ian Hancock YT lecture, "Porrajamos", great summary of the "science", and the Laws enacted, all based on logic & the science of the day towards some utopia, enlightening!
An historian would claim to be less subjective and their use of language might imply they are more objective but it’s window dressing. Historians are hugely subjective because history is subjective. Just look at the study of Winston Churchill and the most recent books around him.
He does talk about them in Who We Are & How We Got Here. Maybe an hour isn't enough.
Does albinoism answer some of the mystery of dark to light skinned people? I saw a show about families with two albino parents and it seemed to be passed down generations as easily as and other family trait. This has made for a good afternoon.
No.
No, it doesn't. Albinism is caused by a mutation that results in the affected individuals being unable to produce any melanin pigment in their skin (& hair, & eyes) at all.
People who have light skin produce less pigment than dark-skinned folk, but their skin is still pigmented.
Not sure where the "mystery" is? The genes for melanin production are fairly well mapped, I think.
Wow amazing
I was having my lovely bowl of corn flakes. Now all I am thinking about is a white young boy’s saved sperms!
🙄🙄🙄
Maybe think of buying actual food instead of that garbage.
When the sentient AI swallow our multiverse, se will generate a black hole and migrate to other galaxies. And we will be in the belly of a ghost monster.
Just read ‘How to Argue with a Racist’ Fascinated by people’s obsession with race. Generally I find it’s people who are insecure in their own identity who can be bothered to hate on others. What I read was an apologist for fruit of the poisoned tree genetics. So disappointed. On the one hand he argues that that there’s so many cultural/social influences that genetics is something in flux, yet on the other hand “let the ‘science’ lead where it may.” “Science is political”, well I guess it all depends on what you mean by political, but in which case it’s impossible for science to lead where it may. Who exactly has benefited from genetics to date? What exactly does it help us understand? I had so many issues with so many assertions he made, particularly with how genetics is in any way, shape or form helpful to the future of the human race. Take his championing of IQ tests and his derision of the idea of all they test is how well you can do IQ tests, yet in the next breath saying IQ is something in flux… Personally I prize emotional intelligence and kindness over “if blah is 16 and blah is a quarter of her age, at what age will she become twice blah’s age?” Who gives a shit and how does that translate into a beautifully kind human being? That’s a messed up value system right there. Don’t even get me started on sports and music… all predicated on some what’s/who’s best, most ‘successful’ value system with acceptable competition at it’s root. Competition, that capitalist middle class construct? Hmmm
As an artist looking at humankind, we can only ever imagine what we can imagine within our given parameters, we are only where we are because of what’s gone before (hidden swastikas and everything) and there is no truth, it’s all a matter of perspective… and yes that goes for scientists too.
One world, one love, no borders ✌🏾❣️
Que bien ... !
Has there been any research on whether corn flakes really reduce sperm?
Since their nutritional value is nearly zero and they are barely palatable, no one is that interested.
Windsor is German, not royal
6:18 the quality of science in the media might be better than at any point in history. But it's awful.
From pop sci youtube channels to main stream media, the science is terrible. There's an entire genre of debunkers who could spend the rest of their lives pointing out bad science in the media.
Politics? Is the CIA on to prof Chen on Yale?
10:39
So disappointed to hear that you felt you should step down from inside science for someone else based on their identity markers - skin colour and number of X chromosomes.
Rodriguez Barbara Martin Lisa Martin George
Read my comment and go home!
Sad yourr sobre attitude...Not very objective!!!!
34:00-ish I've hated Lawrence as a writer since 'O'-level English Lit, but it was purely personal. Nice to have a more objective reason to dislike him.
@super cute That is just denialism, possibly indicative of historical ignorance, or just a desire to confuse people as to your motivations.
Eugenics as a movement very much had to do with racism, both in Germany and the USA. They are, historically, as bound together as conjoined twins.
Edit: Oh, that's interesting. My notification says your handle is "Eugenicist", not "super cute", as it is here. I have to say, the original seems more accurate.
@Rectus The more you repeat racist rhetoric, the less convincing you are when you say you're not a racist. "Weakening the species to destruction" is not a real thing.
@Rectus 🎵Plato, they say, could stick it away/
Half a crate of whiskey every day🎶
Meanwhile, the Spartans also practiced pedophilia; are you recommending that as a practice?
@Rectus Great use of the fallacy fallacy, achievement unlocked!
But slightly more seriously, _Cutie whatever_ is just posting to advocate for scientific racism, so more than a touch of mockery is deserved. Just because she knows one tiny factette about eugenics history from ancient times doesn't actually address the fact that she's wilfully ignorant of more recent history, and why that recent history (if you can call 75-100 years ago 'recent') has pissed all over her badly memorised apologia.
We fought a war over this shit, so it really is her job to do due diligence and read a bit more widely than Tucker Carlson or similar ideologues, if she doesn't want to get beaten up online by snowflakes like me and get laughed at by the other racists.
Also, her line about destroying the species is pure fantasy; _Game of Thrones_ was more convincing, and that had dragons in it.
Edit: Oh, you're _Rectus_ now! Sorry, I didn't clock that you were doing that old troll thing of continually changing your handle, and thought you were someone else. Just substitute "you" for "she" above, I'm sure you'll be able to figure it out.
@BinaryCommunist yes, we all saw "300"...
Is there a point to your little "stream of consciousness?
Science isn't political.
There may be an ideal, platonic "science" that is apolitical, no doubt practiced by shining golden beings of enlightened reason. But those people are not us, and our version is very much influenced by us being the emotional, passionate monkeys we are.
But everything associated with it is.
Sounds like someone who doesn't do science
The earth is NOT a globe. You need to understand this.
You need to understand that you do not have a convincing case for that statement.
@@akizeta Of course we do. It's a scientific fact. Look into it. Try and prove the globe. You can't.
@@newsdropz5361 Just saying "It's a scientific fact" is not convincing. It's barely even a case.
You're on the wrong video.
There often a waste of time in YT comment sections...in this case, that would be you.
It was a picture mirror image
BORING