Despite ranking among the smaller and younger medical subdivisions, the historical framework for human genetics as a scientific discipline is both complex and multi-layered. The term ‘Human genetics’ (“Humangenetik”), established in West-Germany after 1945, was predominantly intended to swiftly replace the study of National Socialist “race hygiene” that had served to justify criminal and genocidal racial policies. Nevertheless, as historians and practitioners have argued since at least the 1980s, post-war West-Germany experienced numerous continuities between “race hygiene” and the “new” field of human genetics. Most prominently, former leading Nazi scientists such as Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer or Hans Nachtsheim were able to continue their careers despite their engagement with the National Socialist regime.
Implementing a decidedly interdisciplinary perspective, this conference not only explored the supranational and international implications of hereditary research after 1945. It also aimed to shift the methodological focus from institutional or personal continuities between “race hygiene”, eugenic thinking, and human genetics to broader theoretical notions, such as transdisciplinary approaches and concepts along the lines of a history of knowledge. As ISABEL HEINEMANN (Bayreuth) proposed in her brief introduction, the focus on research practices and concepts in the realm of human genetics serves to challenge the established paradigm of the year 1945 as a decisive watershed in the field.
The first panel thus centered on the aspect of population genetics as an emerging field, inspecting historical as well as present practices of knowledge production and representation.
In her opening lecture, VERONIKA LIPPHARDT (Freiburg) addressed the current boom of genetic studies on Roma populations as an eminently vulnerable group and compared those to research practices over the last hundred years. Drawing on the extensive analysis of scientific data and publications, Lipphardt diagnosed severe misrepresentation within sampling methods in genetic studies that construct Roma as a transnationally dispersed, alleged genetic isolate. Consequently, she problematized this doubtful postulate of genetical “purity” which appears to make Roma eligible for the study of rare hereditary diseases. Lipphardt moreover shed light on the limits of common research practices. These included migration of misrepresentative data into scientific databases without explicit informed consent as well as the neglected stigmatizing implications of medical-genetic research on Roma.
Providing a coinciding historical perspective, LUKAS ALEX (Bayreuth) investigated the continuities in West German eugenic thinking and knowledge after the at least semantic paradigm shift of 1945. Among others, Alex referred to Otmar von Verschuer’s government-funded “genetic register” that mapped hereditary diseases in the Münster area since 1957 and to Hans Nachtsheim’s vocal pleas for voluntary sterilization. Thus, he evidenced conspicuous links between research practices and eugenic knowledge production or circulation under National Socialism as well as in the Federal Republic of Germany. Alex concluded that while West German human geneticists ostensibly moved away from authoritarian, state-enforced eugenics, they nonetheless continued eugenic substantiations in population genetics.
Commenting on both lectures, PASCAL GERMANN (Bern) suggested to contextualize the ubiquitous malpractice of genetic research on Roma and to link them to longer historical research traditions, thereby conjoining approaches of Lipphardt’s and Alex’ research. Germann furthermore proposed to focus on transnational entanglements of human and population genetics and to explore the intercorrelation and mutual dependence of politics and genetic research.
Shifting focus to more practical applications of human genetic theory and research, the second panel investigated genetic counseling as a crucial converging point of state, individual and science. Only purportedly an aspect of purely national healthcare, the resemblances and distinctions in counseling practices transgressing federal borders offered intriguing outlooks on prospective research.
Contributing to this notion of conceivable transnational entanglements, JENNY BANGHAM (London), examined the role of genetic counseling in the post-war United Kingdom, where the professional practice of “risk-evaluation” in family planning since 1940 had not only been carried out by counselors with a medical or scientific background but also in cooperation with trained “genetic nurses” and social workers. Bangham problematized the inherent risk-benefit-calculation calumniating genetic diseases as a “burden” which was induced by embedding genetic counseling into the state-run National Healthcare System. Likewise, she critically reflected the ubiquitous genetic registers that documented genetic predispositions of entire families as a means to a substantiate cost-benefit considerations in public healthcare. Evincing prospects of future research, Bangham outlined questions on the future of these genetic registers in view of digitization as well as aspects of emotional history which the maintenance of registers have entailed for health workers and families.
Providing an important perspective on healthcare and genetic counseling in a post-war socialist system, SUSANNE DOETZ (Berlin) remarked that similarly to West-Germany or the United Kingdom, the German Democratic Republic did not pursue a state-enforced eugenic program either. According to Doetz, the GDR instead employed preventive risk-concepts focusing on the reduction of mortality rates especially in prenatal care and genetic counselling. These corresponded with the governmental pro-natalist health policy and therefore were prominently advocated by physicians. However, as Doetz pointed out, the shift to individually evaluate risks through consensual genetic exploration of counselees did on no account revoke stigmatization, while structural ableism persisted in a clear distinction between “desirable” and “undesirable” offspring.
In his comment, HEINER FANGERAU (Düsseldorf) identified numerous striking convergences within the healthcare systems of GDR and UK. He thus encouraged to further scrutinize whether semantic shifts also result in conceptual changes in genetic counseling. Fangerau moreover emphasized the relevance of investigating the adapting technologies utilized in genetic counseling and – with specific regard to genetic registers – their contemporary relevance.
The keynote lecture by STAFFAN MÜLLER-WILLE (Cambridge) proponed global history approaches in a learned ”tour d’horizon” of hereditary history, linking casta-paintings from as early as the 17th century to later works by anthropologist Jan Czekanowski or geneticist Reginald C. Punnett. Drawing on illustrative national and international exemplifications such as the Swedish “State Institute for Racial Biology“ or the UNESCO statements on race, Müller-Wille furthermore examined the complex semantics surrounding the term “race” amidst the veer from eugenics to human genetics around 1945.
The third panel returned to examining research practices in human genetics, shedding light on both scientists and methodological approaches respectively in a historical context.
In a longue-durée-narrative, HEIKE PETERMANN (Münster) retraced the history of research on hereditary diseases back to the 16th century, considering progressions in genetic knowledge achieved by Moreau de Maupertuis or George Huntington on the way. Elucidating the specific role of German human geneticists or (ex-)eugenicists after 1945, Petermann postulated that researchers such as Fritz Lenz or Otmar von Verschuer were swiftly reintegrated into the international academic community of human geneticists.
ALEXANDER VON SCHWERIN (Braunschweig) perspicaciously analyzed the role and pertinence of animal modeling throughout the 20th century. First emerging in the form of comparative medical genetics as a conjunction of agriculture and eugenics from the 1920s onwards, animal modeling became increasingly important with atomic-age research into radioactive and later chemo-mutagenic influences as well as with more recent developments such as the large-scale Human Genome Project. Schwerin proposed the narrative of a long-term historical process paradigmatically demonstrated by the subsequent employment of rabbits and laboratory mice-strains for genetic and later genome research. Moreover, in the scientific oeuvre of Hans Nachtsheim as well as his academic student Udo Ehling, Schwerin discerned seeming ruptures but also various flagrant institutional and heuristic transgressions in genetic research practice.
Commenting, HANS-GEORG HOFER (Münster) further inquired into criteria for distinguishing change, continuity and transition in such research practices. Correspondingly, he questioned the epistemological status of animal model research, asking to which extent the human genetic approach to animal testing is to be distinguished from that of other sciences and other research practices in general. With regard to Petermann, Hofer opened up perspectives on scrutinizing the various ways of knowledge transmission between laboratory and clinic, exemplified in Germany by the former pediatrician and subsequent human geneticist Widukind Lenz.
Resuming discussion on different dimensions and enactments of genetic counseling, the concluding panel explored current methodological approaches to further investigate (inter)national entanglements this field.
ISABEL HEINEMANN (Bayreuth), challenging once more the supposed watershed of 1945, scrutinized the post-war transnational consolidation of family and marriage counseling on a socio-genetic basis established predominantly by the eugenicist and vocal advocate of sterilization Paul B. Popenoe in the USA as well as by the race scientist Otmar von Verschuer in West Germany. In their corresponding and interdependent practice of propagating normative biologist family and reproductive values, marriage ideals and gender roles, as Heinemann evidenced, an overt continuity in eugenic thinking and knowledge production before and after 1945 becomes evident.
Stressing the value and potential of a critically reflected oral-history-approach, FELICITAS SÖHNER (Düsseldorf) elaborated how the implementation of such methods proves particularly advantageous when analyzing the transformation of a scientific discipline (here: human genetics) or retracing concomitant social and academic discursive processes. As she referred to a comprehensive interview study with post-war practical human geneticists in the FRG, Söhner closely examined the institutional formation of this field since the 1970s. She thereby also contextualized key developments and figures within the discipline such as Benno Müller-Hill, the prominent proponent of critical debate on human genetics and its historic origins.
HENNING TÜMMERS (Tübingen) suggested in his comment to further broaden the frame of reference of an oral-history-approach to human genetics by also including laboratory assistants, secretaries and others when conducting interviews. With respect to the analogous and permeating practice of genetic family counseling on either side of the Atlantic after 1945, he identified research desiderata in scrutinizing particular motives and processes of reasoning in both counselors and counselees which were essential for the success of Popenoe and Verschuer. Consenting with Heinemann and one of this conference’s major conclusions, Tümmers welcomed the comprehensive notion of questioning seemingly established historical watersheds against a national and transnational backdrop.
Taken together, the conference provided not only a prolific interdisciplinary exchange on the history of human genetics. Participants furthermore identified clear incidents of change and continuity, suggesting new periodizations such as re-integrating the first third of the 20th century in a historical narrative of the discipline that does not stop in 1945. Also, they suggested a stronger focus on research practices or previously disregarded entanglements which not only transcend national, but continental borders. Exploring these new propositions for prospective research will without doubt substantially contribute to a yet more thorough understanding of human genetics as a scientific discipline in its historical context.
Conference Overview:
Panel 1: Genetic Research on Populations
Chair: Isabel Heinemann (Bayreuth)
Veronika Lipphardt (Freiburg): Genetic Studies with Vulnerable Populations: The Case of the Roma
Lukas Alex (Bayreuth): Population Genetics and Eugenic Knowledge in the Early Federal Republic of Germany
Pascal Germann (Bern): Comment
Panel 2: Genetic Counseling between State and Individuum
Chair: Julia Reus (Bayreuth)
Jenny Bangham (London): Affective Registers: Documentation and Genetic Counseling in the UK’s National Health Service
Susanne Doetz (Berlin): Talking about Risks. Genetic Counseling in the GDR in the 1970s and 1980s
Heiner Fangerau (Düsseldorf): Comment
Intermission: Excursion to Richard Wagner Museum, guided tour in English by museum director Sven Friedrich on Wagner’s antisemitism and its impact
Keynote lecture
Isabel Heinemann (Bayreuth): Introduction
Staffan Müller-Wille (Cambridge): From Eugenics to Human Genetics: International Entanglements
Panel 3: Heredity or Environment? Aetiological Research
Chair: Lukas Alex (Bayreuth)
Heike Petermann (Münster): Hereditary Diseases: Tracing the Research of German Human Geneticists
Alexander von Schwerin (Braunschweig): Different Conjunctures of Animal Models in Human Genetics, 1930 – 1990
Hans-Georg Hofer (Münster): Comment
Panel 4: New Perspectives on the Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling in West-Germany
Chair: Julia Eichenberg (Bayreuth)
Isabel Heinemann (Bayreuth): Happy Healthy Families. Human Genetic Counseling in the 1950s and 1960s in West-Germany and the US
Felicitas Söhner (Düsseldorf): Understanding the Transformation of a Medical Discipline with Oral History
Henning Tümmers (Tübingen): Comment