October 20, 2014

Darwinian medicine is not new

pin it button Darwinian medicine is not new

evolution news 300x128 Darwinian medicine is not new

by Michael Egnor
Evolution News and Views

Jerry Coyne has a post on Darwinian medicine, which is a new branch of evolutionary biology that studies the evolutionary causes of disease and claims to provide evolutionary insights that are of therapeutic value.

I’m a professor at a medical school and I have several decades of experience teaching medical students. As you might imagine, I am quite skeptical about the value of Darwinian medicine in medical education. In this post and in posts to follow, I’ll briefly summarize my reasons for skepticism about Darwinian medicine in the medical school curriculum:

1) Darwinian medicine is not new.

During the first half of the 20th century, Darwin’s theory played a central role in medical education in the United States, as well as in continental Europe, primarily in Germany. Eugenics is the application of breeding principles to human biology based on the Darwinian understanding of man. The term eugenics was coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton (the concept, but not the word, appeared in Darwin’s Descent of Man).

Eugenics is the original Darwinian medicine. According to Darwin’s understanding of human origins, man evolved by a long brutal process of natural selection, and man’s highest qualities were evolved by a process of millions of years of often violent struggle. As man became civilized, the weakest members of the species — the ill and infirm, the handicapped, the mentally deficient — were unnaturally preserved in the population through man’s charitable instincts. Darwinists cautioned that compassion for the weak was diluting the human species, allowing defective humans to breed and spread their deficiencies. The solution to this Darwinian crisis seemed obvious: human beings must be bred, like farm animals, to produce the strongest individuals and preserve the species.

Eugenics (Darwinian medicine 1.0) was a central principle in American medicine from 1900 through the late 1930′s. It was ‘consensus science’, opposed only by a few deniers (mostly Christians and especially the Catholic church, which strongly opposed eugenics in any form) who insisted on respect for human dignity despite illness and infirmity. Eugenics was taught in medical schools and in biology programs, and was embraced by major medical and scientific organizations in the United States. Eugenics was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the Birth Control League (later renamed Planned Parenthood), and countless universities. It was mainstream consensus science. Compulsory sterilization laws were passed, and 50,000 Americans were sterilized against their will in the first half of the 20th century.

The Germans deeply admired and emulated the American eugenics program, and took Darwinian medicine a step further. In the late 1930′s the Nazis organized the T4 program, which was an explicitly Darwinian approach to cleansing the German gene pool of weak people, most of whom were handicapped. Citizens were encouraged to report handicapped people to government authorities, who would take them into custody for medical evaluation. If they were deemed a genetic impediment, they were euthanized. By 1945, German doctors, acting on an explicitly Darwinian understanding of man, killed 250,000 handicapped people, a large number of whom were children.

At the Doctor’s Trial following the war, 23 doctors and administrators were tried for various crimes against humanity. Seven doctors, including doctors involved in the T4 program, were hanged.

Dr. Coyne:

[there are] few evolutionary biologists … on medical school faculty: almost none…

After WWII, eugenicists on medical faculties in the United States were generally shown the door, and eugenics, the first Darwinian medicine, disappeared as a explicit component of medical education.

Coyne is right: there are virtually no evolutionary biologists on medical school faculties in the 21st century. Part of the reason is mundane: evolutionary biology plays no significant role in medical science and practice. Medicine depends on actual scientific understanding of disease mechanisms and therapeutics, and speculation about evolutionary origins is of no tangible value to the medical profession.

There are also a few members of each medical school faculty who know enough about the history of medicine in the 20th century who greet the topic of Darwinian medicine with widened eyes.

More on Darwinian medicine in ensuing posts.

Cross-posted on Egnorance

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_and_darwinian_medi047691.html

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Pin It

One of the important and counterintuitive insights that C.S. Lewis offered was his observation that far from encouraging skepticism, the mention of “science” can call forth a perilous gullibility, not least from educated, intelligent people who should know better.

Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Knowledge is advanced and new discoveries are made by challenging scientific results and testing alternative hypotheses.

Lewis recognized, though, that science can also promote an uncritical acceptance of views that are said to be backed by science or wrapped in science-y language. In Lewis’s time, most scientists supported eugenics, or the belief that the gene pool of humans should be improved, and they argued that their views were supported by science. These views led to policies such as forced sterilization of those deemed to be of less worth, such as criminals and the handicapped. These policies were not only popular in authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, but in democracies such as the United States and England. Anyone who opposed what the vast majority of scientists were saying must be “anti-science,” it was argued.

So what has changed since then? Are we supposed to believe that just a century ago, elite opinion in science and in the culture at large was so terribly fallible and vulnerable to being misled by prejudice — yet today, it cannot err?

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Pin It

We have previously reported how Dr. Paul Offit, the mainstream media’s go-to doctor to support vaccines, has huge conflicts of interest, and is a very dangerous man. We mentioned how Paul Offit wants mandatory vaccines for every single child in the United States, and he feels his voice in the matter should over-rule parental choice.

So with the mainstream media giving him basically a free pass to preach his message, Offit has attacked anyone who dares to question his view on vaccines. Earlier this year, he publicly stated at the Health Journalism 2014 meeting that journalists should NOT be balanced in their reporting about vaccines. He wants only one side reported, his side, and he stated publicly that journalists who publish the other side should go to “journalism jail.”

Offit thinks that only medical exemptions should be issued for vaccines, and has campaigned for ending religious and philosophical exemptions. Allowing only medical exemptions would give complete control of America’s school-age children to the medical system in regards to vaccines.

So should doctors like Offit be considered authorities on religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines? He claims science trumps philosophy or religion. So if you object to things in vaccines such as cells from aborted human embryos, monkey kidneys, aborted calf fetus blood, mouse brains, etc. – too bad. According to Offit, only doctors should make those decisions.

For a response to Dr. Offit by another doctor, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, we republish with her consent a previous rebuttal she wrote to Dr. Offit below. Turns out that not all doctors agree with Offit after all…

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

Pin It

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Pin It

It’s a struggle out there. You have to be fit to survive. When the pressure is on, nature favors the ones who can take the heat.

It’s a theme that has been drummed into our heads since school. It’s a cultural meme. Social Darwinists used it to justify atrocities. Today’s kinder, gentler Darwinists downplay the violence in the struggle for existence, yet the fact as they see it is inescapable: environmental circumstances select random genetic mutations that confer fitness, i.e., survival, by allowing organisms to adapt.

That in a nutshell explains the development of complex life forms. We’re assured there are gobs of evidence for it, too.

Looking into a recent paper in PNAS about evolutionary fitness tradeoffs, you have to feel sorry for a team of five evolutionists from UC Irvine who did their level best to produce clear evidence for the favored story.

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

Pin It

The evolution of consciousness is presently inexplicable: Can we really understand a transition from the excrement-throwing ape to the early cave paintings as a long, slow series?

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!