Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39970513›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2025

Expertise and the "new science" of eugenics.

Margaret R Eby

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Margaret R EbyDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennyslvania Perelman School of Medicine, 14th Floor, Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. Electronic address: margaret.eby@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

The Penn Postdoctoral Training Program in the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Genetics and GenomicsT32HG009496 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Steven Joffe · 2017 to 2026
$3.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS T32 HG009496
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How are unsettled forms of expertise settled to the advantage of established, but insecure, professional authorities? This research draws on the emergence of eugenics as a "new science" during the first decades of the twentieth century, investigating how medicine came to provide disciplinary authority and organization to eugenic interventions. I do so by analyzing medical publications between 1907 and 1927 to trace physicians' engagement with eugenic hypotheses, their original research pertaining to eugenics, and the growth of eugenics as an explanatory medical factor. First, I analyze the professional challenge eugenics presented to the rapidly transforming field of medicine and the domain of medical authority. Next, I show first how physicians cast eugenics as both a historical norm and a new science, reinforcing it as part of their domain while protecting their skepticism. Finally, I argue that medicine was able to legitimize unsettled science through a process of "expertise laundering" in which medicine dominated an interdisciplinary exchange of eugenic claims which obscured the unsettled science behind eugenics while bolstering its legitimacy.

Indexed as

EugenicsPhysiciansHistory, 20th CenturyHumans

Identifiers

PMID39970513
PMCPMC12136576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.