I am a full-time freelancer with postgraduate level of training and many years of work experience in social research and IT. I have BA in Sociology and conducted a number of social researches. I also have Masters Degree in Computing and practical experience of developing and hosting websites. I had also worked as project manager, which gave me an opportunity to develop ample leadership, planning, writing and communication skills. I also work as a research officer for a UK-based firm and have successfully completed more than 40 briefs. In addition, I have wealth of experience and skills in researching academic problems, synthesizing a large amount of data and communicating ideas in clear and concise English language. I am most confident to deliver excellent essays, research reports and proposals in the fields of Sociology, Criminology, Information Science and Computer Science. I also develop high quality web sites, databases, web and desk-top software applications using Java, PHP, Mysql, CSS and Flash.

The Formation and Progress of Eugenics

Theoretical Background and Application (Malthus, Darwin and Mendel)
Eugenics, as an attempt to improve human race genetically through selective breeding, had precedents in that various scientists made observations and studies on population increase, inheritance, and evolution of living things.

The first theoretical component used by eugenics advocates came from the works of Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). His work was probably the earliest, solid and factual observation with regard to population growth in human society. He argued that population size tend to increases in an exponential rate while food increases in an arithmetic rate of growth. Owing to this imbalance, a natural consequence of famine and poverty takes place and can eventually harm human society. He acknowledges the urge for reproduction among men and women and noted that unless this is regulated and kept with in the range food supply can afford, famine kills the excess. Abstinence, marrying late and homosexuality were regarded as preventive factors for production of new babies; where as, war, natural calamities and famine as negative factors trimming down the excess of population. He opposed the support of government to the needy in the ground that it only encourages the poor to give birth to more kids [Rosenberg, 2007, URL.]

The second theory used in building the eugenics propositions came from the works of an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel (1822-1884). He is a pioneer in the scientific study of heredity. He did observation and scientific experiments in peas over seven successive years in a garden place presently located in the Check Republic and came up with the basic laws of heredity. From his experiment he concluded that new generations inherit some traits from their parents, which would include a dominant and recessive gene. The dominant one shows up in the offspring; where as, the recessive one would be passed on as a potential to the grand offspring. This study of inter-generational and one-directional inheritance established the earliest foundations for the modern study known as genetics. His contribution for the understanding of living things is so great and widely used in plant and animal breeding for stock optimization. [Rhee, 2008, URL] [Bailey, no date, URL]

Based on the observation of Malthus, the British naturalist, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) came up with the theory of evolution. He wrote publication The Origin of Species in the 1840s and published the papers in 1858. According to this theory, there is a natural selection of genes and random changes in them that would be kept, if useful, for the survival of the organism. Like Malthus, he thought that unrestricted growth of population would overrun the planet. But he also noted that not all offsprings produced by an organism survive all the time. It is only the ones that are fit that survive. He also pointed out that not only organisms show difference in their characters from each other, but they also have resemblance to their parents due to hereditary links. The parents contribute limited amount of traits to their children and evolution takes place based on changes that occur at the genetic level and when it is successfully passed on to the next generation. [University of Michigan, 2005 URL] [Hirst (no date) URL]

In the early and mid twentieth century, genetics and evolution were combined to explain evolutionary change and it demonstrated inheritance from generation to generation. The slow change over time produces variations that create more fit and adept members of an organism. For the theory of natural selection to work, organism have to be able carry a set of traits by inheritance, survive in the natural world and be able to reproduce and pass over certain set of traits in turn. [University of Michigan, 2005 URL] [Hirst (no date) URL]

Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest was borrowed by eugenicist and applied in the economic, cultural and political environment of western societies in the late 19th century. These advocates were known as Social Darwinists, who attempted to find biological causation and justification for inequalities among people in society. During this time, genetics in its modern form was not yet understood and the founding father of eugenics thinking, Galton, suggested improving the human race using artificial selection and following Darwin’s theory. The eugenics movement in its zenith, the first half of 2oth century, strongly advocated using the genetic composition of people to explain existing inequalities and variations that were actually related with social class and race. But in the second half of 20th century, biologists and genetics had to work hard to clear the science of human genetics from social and class biases disguised in eugenics. Building on the foundations of knowledge over the last 150 years, molecular biology has figured out the complete list of human genome. [Kevles, 1995, URL]

The Reasons for the Development the Eugenics Movements
Cloning, genetic reengineering and the human Genome project are some of the hot issues in the application of technology and research in animal and plan life that is trekking gradually to human beings. This practice and seeming future opportunity to medical cures and understanding is commendable. However, historically eugenics has a dark past in the forms of racial hygiene and disguised racism.

Eugenics is a concept coined by Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, in the 19th Century. Eugenics refers to the study of breeding human races with desired traits as well as genetic make up and overtaking the races without such qualities through an active promotion of races with the superior traits. Eugenics proposes considering all factors that bear influence, no mater how distant, on qualities of humans like intelligence, athleticism, etc. The two cousins had a common interest on how humans are evolved. However, Charles Darwin had interest on exploring human evolution and other living beings with more focus on forces that did influence natural selection. But for Francis Galton, he is interested more in initiating a system of Social Darwinism. He envisaged a social system that facilitates the natural selection process rather than impede it and applying the stock improvement methods to human beings. [Agar, no date, pp.1-13, URL]

Later in twentieth century, this eugenics perspective was followed by the Nazi Germans in their project of breeding men and women of selected traits. In these human stock improvisation projects, Nazis provided preferential and better treatment to the chosen breeds; where as, those deemed inferior and unfit were forced in to sterilization and exclusion. People with disability like deafness under went forced sterilization in accordance with the race hygiene law of the Nazis. Also, when marrying out superior race members with undesired traits to those regarded as inferiors as a strategy of containing the undesirable trait failed, the Nazis turned to the Death camps for speedy extermination. [Agar, no date, pp.1-13, URL]

Agar (no date, URL) suggests that eugenics can be looked at two categories: the aristocratic eugenics of Nazis in the 20th century and a liberal eugenic of twenty first century. In the case of aristocratic eugenics, it is presumed that the state had to take a leading role in enforcing a strict regulation on reproductive right and practice so that the presumed superior trait races eventually dominate the inferiors. Because of the horrendous and inexcusable abuse of human rights and criminal activities the Nazis Germans carried out following the aristocratic eugenics, currently this type of eugenics is associated with rather fearsome thoughts and faces strong objections. Agar (no date, URL), however, thinks that this historical trauma should not be used to shun what is termed as “liberal eugenics.”

Liberal eugenics, as to Agar, advocates the overall improvement of the human stock based on the liberal values of individual choice rather than a stat-sponsored compulsion. Also, it is suggested that potential problems that may arise from practicing liberal eugenics have to be acknowledge like individuals making a poor choice of gene composition for interbreeding etc. Likewise, not knowing what genetic reengineering may bring in the long run is a challenge to be reckon with since there is a lack of historical precedence in practicing liberal eugenics. It is argued that liberal eugenics provides individuals in liberal societies with more avenue and means to exercise their right of choice and control in the reproductive sphere, by giving parents new options as to what type of children they want to have genetically. It is also duly acknowledged that the reality of life has rather intricate economic and social relationships that cast doubt as to how much individuals would actually be free to make such decision and exercise their right of choice. [Agar, no date, pp.1-13, URL]

Lynn (no date, preface section, URL) explains that eugenics is a correct science that was supported by biological and some social scientists in the first half of 20th century and the support gradually declined in the second have. By the end of the century it was rejected totally. Lynn summarized the essence of the concept as follows: such human qualities as intelligence, health and moral character are qualities worth propagating in new generations and their genetic base should be selectively promoted. The motives for such human race improvement propositions also go to strengthening a nation’s economic, scientific and military might. As to Lynn, Eugenic is also a response to the historical observation known as dysgenics, decline in health, intelligence and moral character, in western societies over 150 years since mid 19th century. Eugenics attempted to turn this ebb upside down and arrest the decline. Advocates of eugenics also believed that it is possible to promote intelligence, health and moral character in society by using what Lynn calls “classical eugenics” and “the new eugenics.” These types of eugenics refer to the use of positive traits promotion as well as suppression of unwanted traits; and the use of cloning, genetic engineering, artificial fertilization methods to promote positive traits respectively. The new Eugenics is purported by Lynn as a desirable thing that has valuable benefits to the individual and society of the western world.

Prior to the 19th century eugenic theory appearance, there were few historical instances where the use of breeding in animals and plants with focus on certain desirable traits was attempted on humans. But the modern time eugenics starts with the works of the British scientist Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics to mean “good breeding” in Greek. Lynn (no date, pp. 3-5, URL) argues that eugenics in the sense Galton proposed is that the mental and physical prowess of future generations can be improved by actively promoting good breeding. His reference to race in the 19th century historical context did mean what population or sub-section of it would mean in the current times. As to Galton, eugenics aims to achieve health, intelligence and moral character in the race so that decline in these regards would not threaten decline of civilization, which he put in contraposition to barbarism. In this regard, eugenics was trying to create the basis of economic, cultural and scientific achievements for western, if not European, societies.

In order to keep the consistency of his argument, Galton explained on the partial genetic basis of intelligence and character while he believed in the sole determinant of good health being genetic components. Unlike him, many scientist in the study of genetic including Charles Darwin believed that intelligence and character are determined by the social environment. But for Galton this genetic base of intelligence, character and health can and should be improved using government policies in western societies. Accordingly, he suggested three categories of people in society: the “desirables”, the “passable”, and the “undesirables.” This categorization followed the outstanding, average and poor grading of people along intelligence, health and character endowments. Consequent to this categorization of society member, Galton proposed positive and negative eugenic to the “desirables” and the “undesirables” respectively. The two types of eugenics refer to deliberate reproduction and deliberate sterilization of people of these respective groups so that society benefits from the increase in the desired genetic threat while the undesirable ones decline. He also looked at immigration and emigration. Even if he pointed out the need for selective control of immigration to acquire desirable genes and reducing undesirable ones through emigration, the migrants during his time mainly were Jews from Eastern Europe. He regarded them as acceptable for some descendants of people with intellectual achievement observed among them. He also included environmental influences as one factor affecting human qualities though he placed stronger emphasis on genetics. In summary, Galton proposed eugenics in response to his perception that the natural selection process that would eradicate ill health, low intelligence, and lack of character has reduced in its pace and resultant genetic deterioration is threatening society and it civilization namely dysgenics. [Ibid, pp.4-17]

Eugenics in Britain
n the Victorian era, Britain underwent rapid social change and a number of changes in the legal rights of women. The transformation brought Britain from predominantly rural nation into an industrialized one with many railway networks. There was clear social stratification and women as well as men had social roles in accordance to their social class. Men in working and middle class were supposed to bring in income where women in middle class took care of the house hold; where as, women from working class worked with low paid jobs. Men from the middle class did non-laborious work for a living. Men and women from the upper class did not work, rather got their income from inherited land and property. [No author, no date, URL]

In the period 1860 – 1960, the birth-rate per family in England and Wales declined ever more steeply. In this hundred year period, fertility level declined almost in similar timing and extent with most other European countries. Increasing separation of sex from reproduction, emergence of social purity movements and attempts to prevent prostitution observed. Among half of al eugenics advocates in Britain were women. [Szreter, 1996, URL]

Eugenics of Galton was accepted in Britain in the last decades of the 19th century. Charles Darwin, who had believed in the weaker role of genetic composition for human quality, gradually changed his view after reading the writings of Galton on genius heredity. Darwin shared Galton’s idea of dysgenics in Britain’s society and suggested that society should seek ways to prevent reproduction of the physically and mentally feeble. Likewise, Herbert Spencer remarked that because of the charities interference in nature’s way of cleaning society from the unfit, natural selection is being hindered. In early twentieth century, more and more recognition and acceptance was given to Eugenics. Karl Pearson, the renowned mathematician, conducted many studies and concluded that natural selection is not working in full force in developed western societies and genetic deterioration is posing danger to these societies. Most biologists and social scientists supported eugenics in the forty years duration from 1920s to 1960s, albeit to a different extent. The biologists and geneticist Ronald Fischer also conducted studies to show his point that the number of children decline with socio-economic status, which in sum result predominance of genetic pool with less intelligent and healthy population sections. Alike social philosophers, psychologists in Britain did subscribed to the ideas of eugenics in the early and middle decades of the 20th century. [Lynn, no date, pp.21-22, URL]

Eugenics in the USA
Support for eugenics in the USA came from academic specialists, politicians like President Roosevelt, family planning activists and many judges who supported sterilization in relation to dysgenics. Also, such big foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Institute, and Cornell Medical school of New York did support eugenics financially. In 1939, the “Geneticist’s Manifesto” was written and in this book a call was made for an active intervention to promote natural selection. Linus Pauling, an American biologist, argued that owing to our show of compassion and permissiveness for a person of weak or defective gene to reproduce, defective gene is not being selected out in the natural way. Consequently, the human genotype quality is declining. He is the scientist that discovered a gene with defect causing sickle cell anaemia. Joshua Lederberg is another American geneticist who argued that genetic deterioration is causing threat to western societies and future use of genetic engineering would be solution to it. Among the other prominent social scientists and psychologists who subscribe to eugenics, the renowned American psychologist Lewis Terman was an important one. He conducted study on children from different socio-economic class and decide that the children’s achievements reflect their status and he attributed it to a better genetic inheritance. Another American psychologist was William McDougall, who attempted to identify a set of traits that affect human behaviours and in turn are influenced by the genetic makeup of the individual. Environmentalists in the later decade discredited this theory. Also Frederick Osbourn, another American geneticist, advocated sterilizing people with mental illnesses. In complement to this, he suggested that improving the social environment of poor children that enables them attain their genetic potentials and this would help to reverse the problem of dysgenics regarding intelligence and character qualities. [Lynn, no date, pp.22-27, URL] [Reilly etal, 1998, URL]

Eugenicists played an active role in the initiation of the 1924 Immigration Act that attempted to curtail the wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe to America. These people were regarded as being people of inferior genetic qualities. These claims of eugenicists have been questioned though. [Lynn, no date, pp. 35-36, URL] [Reilly etal, 1998, URL]

The Harvard biologist William E. Castle, published materials that advocated the objectives on eugenics and demonstrated his intentions of improving human race by weeding out human qualities or attributes considered to be undesirable. These qualities included alcoholism, feeblemindedness and criminality. He argued that because of avoidance in experiments in interbreeding and manipulating human genes, our knowledge in this area is lagging behind as compared to that of plants and other animals. As to him, the good qualities of human race are dwindling and being overtaken by the bad heritable qualities and this situation called for a science like eugenics. Apart from efforts of making eugenics popular and accepted, active government imposed actions were taken in America by regulating and in some cases restricting reproduction of people deemed to carry undesirable genes. In the 1920s, immigration of people was also regulated along the lines of eugenics objectives. Politicians of various follow and scientists and medical professionals had widely accepted eugenics in the first half of 20th century America. [Mendelsohn, 2000, URL]

According to Reilly etal (1998, URL), in the first 60 years of the twentieth century, USA practiced negative eugenic measures to eradicate the genes of people considered to have mental retardation and illness. These practices declined in the post second world war period. The negative eugenic measures were forced sterilization and discriminatory immigration control. In between 1920 and 1968 a total of 60,000 people were sterilized in the USA, where the rate of forced sterilization was 5000 people each year in the 1930s. Even if this practice was not sanctioned at the federal level, up to 30 states had such programs driven by eugenics premises.

Eugenics in Germany
Eugenics association was established in 1905 in Germany having biologists, geneticist and social scientists as its members. This association was a forum of academic debate like that of other western countries. But the “race hygiene” areas of specialization later started in the University of Munich followed by the institute of human anthropology, heredity and eugenics in Berlin in 1927. Eugenics was actively practiced by the Nazis starting from 1933, the year in which they came to power. Germany issued and applied an eugenics sterilization law, which dictates that people with mental illness, physical disability and genetic defects should be forcibly sterilized after physicians refer them to hereditary health courts. In such manner, in between the years of 1933 to 1939, it is reported that 300 to 400 Germans were sterilized. This activity in Germany was later declined for lack of physicians. Even if this sterilization practice was condemned in the western world, it was essentially the same to what many European nations did including the USA. Lynn (no date, URL) points out that the Germans practice of Euthanasia on adult patients was motivated by economic pressure that arose from Germany’s wartime footing and not related with the influence of eugenics as often claimed. Also, eugenics was not the principal driver of Nazis’ act of killing spree in the Concentration and Death camps as it was demonstrated by Nazis’ envy and feeling of threat the Jews posed. The Nazis saw the Jews as competent people and would take them over if they are not to be eradicated. The Nazis felt this because the Jews proved themselves and attained many elitist positions in Germany as far back as the 1930s. However, in the 1930s, there were German eugenicists who believed that cross-breeding among races result in genetic deterioration and the German Aryan race should not be mixed with the Jews. So these scientists advocated the eradication of the Jews. Moreover, there were others among eugenicists who believed that the economic activities of Jews were only demonstrations of extortion rather than productive qualities and, hence, the Jews should be exterminated. [Lynn, no date, pp.28-30, URL] [Reilly etal, 1998, URL]

Lynn (no date, URL) argues that the original propositions and assertions of Galton about hereditary basis of some health problems, the importance of selective breeding and problem of dysgenics in modern societies were all confirmed in researches in the 20th century. The basis for these researches was the laws and principles forwarded by the popular and pioneer geneticist Gregor Mendel. Studies showed that certain mental illnesses and retardations have genetic basis. This was to a certain extent believed to be true with regard to intelligence and character. Studies involving twins and adopted twins in the 1930s claimed to find out resemblance of character and intelligence among identical twins than among fraternal ones as well as among twins adopted by different families. [Lynn, no date, pp.30-31, URL]

In 1905 Alfred Binet developed tool for measuring intelligence that was later adopted in USA and Britain. This tool was used to quantitatively support claims of differentiation in intelligence among various socio-economic classes. Censuses conducted in 1900 and 1910 in USA and 1911 in UK that showed negative relationship between socio-economic class and fertility levels. The census results and claims from the intelligence measuring tools were fused together by eugenicists to conclude that society is suffering from dysgenics and measures along the lines of eugenics’ proposal have to be taken. [Lynn, no date, pp.30-33, URL]

Family Planning in Britain and the US (Marie Stopes, Margaret Sanger)
In USA and Britain, family planning efforts were initiated by eugenicist with various levels of resistance initially from governments. In the USA, Margaret Sanger made a pioneer attempt of opening a family planning clinic in New York during the First World War. But she was imprisoned for violating the obscenity law which was enforce during that time and similar efforts were not legally sanctioned until the 19040s. In parallel, Marie Stopes opened the family planning clinic in Britain in 1921 in London. She had eugenicist and feminist derives that lead her to opening this clinic. A watershed for the acceptance of family planning in Britain came in 1930 with the stat of contraceptives and family planning courses in the Royal Institute of Public Health for medical professionals and doctors. In the first half of the 20th century Britain, mandatory placement of people with mentally retardation and illnesses were measures inspired by eugenicists’ arguments. In Germany, eugenicist had success in establishing institutes for knowledge and information distribution among the population. As a result of spread in such sensitization and family planning services provisions, the fertility discrepancy in parallel with socio-economic status was narrowed down. Eugenicists regard this as an important victory in their fight to eliminate dysgenics. [Lynn, no date, pp.33-35, URL]

Racism and Eugenics
Lynn (no date, pp.36-38, URL) also explain that eugenics declined since the 1960 and it has been dismissed as being a “pseudo-science” that did not understood genetics. This is partly because of the modern democratic value of individual rights and less social right. However, she still upholds the view that rejection of eugenics is not warranted.

Eugenics attempts to forward genetic-determinism and discriminatory measures be taken accordingly to improve the overall genetic pool of the society, which benefits from increased intelligence, health and attributes. In America, as recent as 1994, supporters of eugenics have made claims based on IQ test results that blacks are less intelligent than whites and Hispanics. Also race-based claims were made in favour of early immigrants who went to America from north-west Europe and segregating those who came from southern and Eastern Europe. These claims have too narrow a focus and unsafe base of explaining the variation in intelligence and health. It in fact ignores historical disfranchisement and power and socio-economic opportunity distribution in western societies. [Kevles, 1995, URL] It is also reported in a number of studies that African-Americans have suffered far more serious segregation, which no other immigrant group suffered. This historically rooted discrimination and deprivation was created over many hundreds of years and with active acts of exclusion. The communities of African-Americans were affected by economic and political decision makings that fostered poverty, criminality and social break down. [Cullen etal, no date, pp.10-13] Alike most American criminologists, Eugenicist disregarded this unequal footing and rather tried to justify it by referring to genetic source, which can hardly be tampered with for an individual due to its inherited nature.

In America, eugenics advocates actively supported discriminatory laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage on the ground that races other than the Caucasian are of inferior quality and intermarriage leads to dysgenics. In 1908, George Shull made experiment on different types of corn sub-groups and found out stronger hybrid rather than a weaker one. He found similar effects when he observed people with mixed race in Jamaica. This finding was not taken seriously by a large number of eugenicists and they resorted to the biblical teaching of marriage among likes. Madison Grant in his book equated race-mixing or miscegenation as criminal act and a danger to white civilization. Laws that prohibit inter-racial marriages were repealed only in 1967. Contrary to the assertions of eugenicists, modern DNA analysis shows that very few genetic variations decide the hair, skin colour and eye characteristics of human beings. Also, variations within the human race are far less compared to variation within a group of chimpanzees. Eugenicists attempted to attribute social problems, attitude differences and social situations to genetic inheritance and ignored the historical stereotypes and irrationality. [Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, no date, URL]

Even if eradication of disease and promotion of good health are widely acceptable, there are many issues of contention. Initial Eugenicists were having nationalist fervour that envisaged good health for a nation so that it can be culturally, technologically and militarily dominates other countries. There are other with universal eugenicist intentions. There are still open questions about the reliability and fairness of systems of screening genetic endowments along social class, racial and gender lines.

It is observable in today’s world that cloning of animals and genetic engineering together with commercial promotion of biotechnology, a mild form of liberal eugenics is going on causing media highlights in some instances, for example controversies around stem cell research and test-tube babies.

Unlike the assertions of Eugenicists, research and theories from Criminology show that criminality is a learnt behaviour through role models, association, exposure and driven by economic needs. The biological theory of criminality advocated by Lombroso (1836-1909), the popular biological positivist and Italian Psychiatrist, was accepted only to a tiny minority of cases studies and researcher that came after Lombroso recognized social and environmental forces as more potent causal factors. [Burke, no date, pp.55-70, URL] Among the three psychological theories of criminality, the psychodynamic and behavioural learning theories advocated that criminals can not help it becoming one since they are psychologically and environmentally predisposed and exposed. The third psychological theory of crime is the cognitive learning theory that explains rational choice after weighing the benefit of the criminal act and the chance of suffering punishment drives criminal act. The cognitive theory and behavioural learning theories do not condemn a whole segment of society for having genetic predisposition to crime. [Burke, no date, pp.74-75, URL]

Eugenics advocates tried to justify their proposal with limited twin studies. However, the studies used by them were found out to have many methodological flaws and limited scope. But similar studies from Europe with higher level of quality indicated that criminality has not been conclusively associated with genetic pre-disposition. Rather environmental factors played more visible role in shaping the criminality of people. [Einstadter and Henry, no date, URL]

In summary, eugenics is a movement driven by perceived genetic deterioration of society in Western Europe and America. Eugenics advocates’ curiosity and interest in improving the human race is understandable after centuries old trial and error in selective breeding of plants and animals. However, during the late 19th century economic transformation of Britain, the movement made gross assumptions about direct relationship between intelligence, health and social class. The movement seems to miss real causes of social problems, class power-struggle in society and cultural relativity. Also, rational and conscious decisions by those in middle and higher classes to have fewer children for the sake of economic gains resulted in an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and number of offsprings. Eugenics advocates ostensibly blamed those in lower social rank and less favoured sub-section of the population for this demographic happening. They also emphasised social right in the form of survival of a society than individuals’ rights. It can also be said that the proposal of eugenics supporters was narcissistic in favour of the elites of Western Societies and was an euro-centric one too.

References
Agar, N. (no date) “Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement”, Blackwell Publishing.  pp.1-13,http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=yqaV_3QzYFMC&dq=eugenics&printsec= frontcover&source=web&ots=zgWgx2ffOW&sig=N0uVCY0abnwcbX-ino4dTqQsFts#PPA3,M1 Accessed: Saturday, 01 March 2008

Bailey, R. No author, (no date) “Mendelian Genetics” Biology Forum. http://biology.about.com/od/mendeliangenetics/Mendelian_Genetics.htm  Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Burke, R.H. (no date) “Introduction to Criminological Theory”  2nd Edition. , pp.55-70.  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fUl9aC6KRSUC&pg=PR7&lpg=PR7&dq= criminology+theories&source=web&
ots=cvndqDjDwS&sig=GHBd2e3845ncPDbejpEbNHc67MU&hl=en#PPA70,M1 Accessed: Monday, 03 March 2008.

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, (no date) “Topic: Race Mixing and Marriage Laws”  http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ 02/03/2008 22:42:11 Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Cullen,T.F.,etal (no date) “Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory”  http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Pn1Q1cpzjzQC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=
criminology+theories&source=web&ots=4aMsZI51ht&sig=SH45EIp
_geaAe2k7idRiQZ2VaaQ&hl=en#PPA12,M1Accessed: Monday, 03 March 2008.

Einstadter,J. W., Henry, W. S. (no date) “Criminological Theory: An Analysis of Its Underlying Assumptions”  2nd ed. The Rowman and Littlefield Publishing group. pp. 95-101. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r3IMdD2xZ8MC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq= criminology+theories+twins+study&source=web&ots=AYjgi3PqNv&sig=Cl-hEssRDJ6MHVazuy29Ymyqgmo&hl=en#PPA98,M1 Accessed: Monday, 03 March 2008.

Hirst, K. (no date) “Archaeology: Charles Darwin (1809-1882)” http://archaeology.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_darwinc.htm Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Kevles. J.D. (1995) “Essay: In the Name of Darwin.”  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html  Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Lynn, R. (no date) “Eugenics: A Reassessment” http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=XaiF6MeXFmQC&
dq=eugenics&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=FUPjA0hDeu&sig=cTN5pc7lvIw8n
2AMSqPJiZusA7o#PPP1,M1 Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Mendelsohn, E. (2000) “The Eugenic Temptation: When ethics lag behind technology.” http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/03/the-eugenic-temptation.html Accessed: Friday, 29 February 2008;

No author, (no date) “Victorian England: An Introduction”, http://www.english.uwosh.edu/roth/VictorianEngland.htm Monday, 03 March 2008.

Reilly, P. etal (1998) “Statement of the Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics (Ashg): Eugenics and the Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom” Approved by the ASHG Board of Directors, October 1998. http://genetics.faseb.org/genetics/ashg/policy/pol-30.htm Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Rhee, Y. S. (2008) “Gregor Mendel” The National Health Museum.  http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.htmlAccessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;
Rosenberg, M. (2007) “Thomas Malthus on Population: Population Growth and Agricultural Production Don't Add Up” http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/malthus.htm        Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;

Szreter, S. (1996) “Fertility, Class and Gender in Britain 1860-1940” book review by Michael Mason, University College London. http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Victorians/szret3.html Accessed: Monday, 03 March 2008.

University of Michigan (2005) “Evolution and Natural Selection”   http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/
selection/selection.html  Accessed: Sunday, 02 March 2008;