From http://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html
REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR A NEW EUGENICS
Paper for The Galton Institute conference
"Man and Society in the New Millennium"
16 - 17 September 1999
at The Zoological Society of London
Regents Park, London NW1 4RY
Published as: Whitney, G. (1999). Reproduction technology for a new
eugenics. The Mankind Quarterly, XL, #2, 179-192.
Introduction
The first century or two of the new millennium will almost certainly
be a golden age for eugenics. Through application of new genetic
knowledge and reproductive technologies the Galtonian Revolution will
come to fruition. This new revolution in the new millennium, which I
call the Galtonian Revolution (Whitney, 1995; 1997a) will be more
momentous for the future of mankind than was the Copernican Revolution
or the Darwinian Revolution. For with the Galtonian Revolution, for
the first time, the major changes will not be to ideas alone, but
rather the major change will be to mankind itself.
In order to briefly discuss some of the reproductive technology that
will contribute to the new eugenics, I need first to define the term
"eugenics". So many different people with so many different agendas
have appropriated this neat word, coined by Sir Francis Galton in
1883, that the word by itself can stand for almost anything (Whitney,
1990). Surely to some eugenics is a route to prevention rather than
mere treatment of the ills of humanity. Also a path to the greatest
good for the greatest number. To others eugenics is a new blasphemy, a
devil-word; a term of hate and abhorrence, a term that in word
associations is supposed to be linked with Hitler, Holocaust, genocide
and the murder of innocents.
For the purposes of today's talk the definition of "eugenics" is one
given by Sir Francis Galton himself. In 1904 at a meeting of the
Sociological Society, Sir Francis said:
"Eugenics is the science which deals with all influences that improve
the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to
the utmost advantage."
It is interesting, and overlooked by many, that Galton's own
definition included both nature and nurture approaches to the
improvement of humanity.
In that same talk Galton (1904) went on to briefly address what is
meant by "improvement". "What is meant by the syllable Eu in Eugenics,
whose English equivalent is good?" First of all, the goodness of a
trait depended upon the balance of that trait with others in
appropriate proportions; thus goodness was relative to the balance of
traits in the individual and also to the make-up of the population.
What was good might be much influenced by education, and the goodness
or badness of traits was not an absolute, but relative to the current
form of civilization. Thus Galton suggested that as much as possible
we should keep morals out of the discussion and avoid absolutes, to
keep out of endlessly entangling philosophical distinctions. One
wishes that some of our current crop of so-called "bioethicists" would
heed this advice.
Galton suggested that although
"no agreement could be reached as to absolute morality, the essentials
of Eugenics may be easily defined. All creatures would agree that it
was better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak, well fitted
than ill-fitted for their part in life. In short that it is better to
be good rather than bad specimens of their kind, whatever that kind
might be. So with men."(Galton, 1904: 36).
And so with men. As we approach the new millennium we have at our call
a reproductive technology that is beyond any imagined by the early
eugenicists.
Reproductive Technology
The advances over the last 50 or so years in genetics, molecular
genetics, and developmental biology, are placing in our hands a wide
range of technology that can be applied to eugenic ends. However, not
all of these applications of reproductive technology are new.
Artificial insemination with a thought toward quality of offspring has
been around for a long time. Dr William Pancoast of Jefferson College
of Medicine in Philadelphia used sperm donated by "the best looking
medical student" in his class when he impregnated a woman whose
husband was infertile. That artificial insemination took place in
1884, although it was not reported until 25 years later, out of fear
of controversy (NABER, 1996).
In vitro fertilization, the making of "test tube babies", has led to
much consideration of a technological revolution in the field of human
reproduction. It was only on July 25th, 1978, that Louise Brown, at 5
¾ lb., was born in an English hospital. She was the first test tube
baby (Bayertz, 1994). In the slightly more than two decades since the
birth of Louise Brown there have been thousands of instances of in
vitro fertilization. About 15% of couples are sterile, and in about
half of the cases the problem is with the female, often blocked
Fallopian tubes. For these couples in vitro fertilization with
subsequent implantation of the embryo allows them to birth their own
genetic child.
However, the embryo need not be implanted in the uterus of the woman
that provided the egg. The first instance of egg donation was reported
in 1984 from Australia (Cohen, 1996). People wanting pregnancy can be
implanted with an embryo made with someone else's egg, or surrogate
mums can carry the embryo as a service for someone else. The
laboratory access that is a part of in vitro fertilization makes
possible a wide range of procedures that depend on access to the
embryo - diagnosis, genetic manipulation -and a whole series of
further techniques such as embryo preservation.
Cryopreservation, combined with artificial insemination and in vitro
fertilization, greatly expanded the possibilities for eugenic births.
It has been suggested that the half-life of semen frozen in liquid
nitrogen is more than 1,000 years. With liquid nitrogen, frozen semen,
eggs, or embryos can be shipped to almost any location. The famous
"Repository for Germinal Choice", founded by Robert K. Graham and
Hermann J. Muller, the 1946 Nobel Prize Winner, opened for business in
1980. Originally intended as a sperm bank for Nobel Prize Winners, it
was later expanded to accept material from a wider range of healthy
and outstanding donors. The Los Angeles Times (Hotz, 1997) reported
that as of 1997 the Repository had contributed to the birth of 218
children, in at least 5 different countries, and the children that the
staff knew about were all "bright and healthy".
According to news reports, in June of 1999 China opened a
government-run "Notables' Sperm Bank" that accepts donors in three
categories: intellectuals with at least a master's degree; top
businessmen; and successful artists, entertainers, and athletes
(Holden, 1999). Clinic officials are quoted as saying that they "would
seek 'select sperm with high-quality characteristics' to fulfil a
popular demand for 'attractive, intelligent children'" (Pottinger,
1999). It sounds to me like a fine plan indeed.
Nuclear substitution is an even more recent innovation. For mammals
the first viable offspring from the substitution into an egg of the
nucleus from an adult cell, was "Dolly", the famous sheep from
Edinburgh that was announced in 1997 (Wilmut, et. al., 1997). Such
cloning of the adult genome has attracted tremendous interest. Of
course the resulting offspring will not be a phenotypic duplicate of
the adult that donated the nucleus. Often overlooked in discussions is
that the clone will also not be a complete genetic duplicate of the
donor. The nuclear genes, those on the chromosomes, will be
duplicates, but the mitochondrial DNA will be that provided by the
egg. It remains to be seen how important this will be.
However, from the point of view of eugenics nuclear substitution with
adult material will be extremely interesting. What is sidestepped is
the genetic recombination that takes place at meiosis, the chromosomal
crossing-over and the random sampling of a half-helping of genes into
the haploid gametes that combine at fertilization. Instead of playing
nature's roulette, the blind chance and dumb luck of sexual
reproduction can be eliminated by substituting an already proven
diploid genome. One of the major consequences would be a reduction in
regression toward the mean for multifactorial traits. The action of
Galton's "law of filial regression" could be largely eliminated. Also,
as David Lykken (Lykken, et. al., 1992) has emphasized, some genetic
characteristics are not normally transmitted from parent to offspring.
The phenotypic traits that result from dominance and epistatic
interactions among the genes in a unique genotype are lost with sexual
recombination, but can be retained by cloning. He refers to such
traits as "emergenic", extremes of genetic characteristics that are
often not familial, but rather emerge as a consequence of a unique
combination of genes in a unique genotype. Geniuses are perhaps one
class of emergenic individuals. The amazing, often precocious
abilities of geniuses has posed a problem for both genetic and
environmental explanations; the truly extreme genius often crops up in
an otherwise undistinguished family and often leaves undistinguished
progeny. As Lykken puts it, "The answer is, I think, that genius
consists of unique configurations of attributes that cannot be
transmitted in half-helpings" (Lykken, 1999). Such emergenic
individuals, where the half-helping of a haploid gamete loses the
unique configuration, will have a chance at recreation through nuclear
substitution.
Many authors have commented on the irony that Sir Francis Galton
himself passed without progeny. With improvement of techniques for
recovery of DNA from tissue samples, and nuclear substitution, I
expect that Sir Francis' unique genotype will be reborn in the new
millennium.
Pre-natal diagnosis has been a real possibility since the 1959
discovery that aneuploidy, specifically trisomy-21, was the cause of
Down's syndrome. Initially dependent on amniocentesis, newer and less
risky procedures are available for the prenatal diagnosis of
chromosomal anomalies as well as a large number of single-gene
disorders. Advocates of pre-natal diagnosis, combined with the
possibility of therapeutic abortion, have made the strong case that
these essentially negative eugenic procedures are life-enhancing and
life-giving, rather than life-destroying. Instead of suffering the
agony and long term problems of a defective child, the pregnancy can
be terminated and replaced with a healthy baby. Now so many
prospective parents benefit from testing that Down's syndrome, once
the most common form of severe retardation, is becoming rare in
advanced countries. So too, Tay-Sachs disease among Askenazi Jews is a
well-known success story for the eugenic benefits of pre-natal
diagnosis.
Pre-implantation diagnosis and modification, made possible by in vitro
fertilization, provides whole new dimensions to pre-natal diagnosis.
The revolutionary impact of in vitro fertilization with regard to
eugenics is that it involves as a matter-of-course access to the
embryo during its earliest stages of development. The cells of early
embryos are totipotent stem cells, when separated each is capable of
producing a complete individual.
Separation in nature gives rise to monozygous - identical - twins or
triplets, sometimes even more genetically identical clones. In the
laboratory, cell mass division of the early embryo was first used to
produce multiple clones of a human embryo in 1993 (Harris, 1998). With
multiple copies of the identical genotype, a wide range of diagnostic
procedures can be conducted with some of the clones, without fear of
damage to the clone that might eventually be implanted for gestational
development.
Access to the egg, sperm, and early embryo facilitates a wide range of
genetic manipulations. Many techniques already routine in animal
research might find application in human eugenics. Knockouts are
individuals in which specific genes have been rendered non-functional.
Gene substitution techniques can insert functional genes to compensate
for defective natural genes, or to enhance trait expression beyond the
naturally occurring range. Transgenic procedures involve the insertion
of functional genes, even ones from other species. In wide use for
research, a recent experiment demonstrates the application of
transgenic technology to primates: Monkeys are being developed that
have bioluminescence from jellyfish (Lau, 1999). Personally, I have no
interest in having my private parts glow in the dark; however, it
would be interesting to be able to navigate like a homing pigeon.
Many additional and more sophisticated techniques are undoubtedly on
the way; in June of 1999, at the meeting of the American Society of
Gene Therapy, "chimeraplasty" was considered, by which single-base DNA
mistakes can be corrected in cell cultures and experimental animals
(Gura, 1999). It is only a matter of time until these techniques are
perfected to a level permitting moral application to human problems.
Many of the techniques mentioned earlier, such as nuclear substitution
and genetic manipulations are not yet efficient enough to be
unquestionably suitable in therapeutic and eugenic application for
humans. But with the pace of research it is surely only a matter of
time, and a short time at that.
Designer children is a label often disparagingly applied by critics in
discussions of individual's new abilities to make personal choices and
eugenic decisions about their own children. Critics of eugenics
blather about invented moral and ethical issues. But as bioethecist
John Harris (1998) has said,
"The best I can do here is repeat a perhaps familiar thought, namely
that although this is often taken to be a difficult question and
indeed the idea of parents being able to choose such things very often
causes outrage, I have found difficulty in seeing this question as
problematic. It seems to me to come to this: either such traits as
hair colour, eye colour, gender, and the like are important or they
are not. If they are not important why not let people choose? And if
they are important, can it be right to leave such important matters to
chance? (Harris, 1998:29).
Ideological and Political Problems
Which brings us to the issue of social attitudes toward eugenics. For
at least the last half of this century there has been an unrelenting
campaign to demonize eugenics. This propaganda assault has been so
influential that all of the institutions and academic departments that
were founded by Sir Francis Galton and Karl Pearson to advance the
study and application of eugenics, have changed their name to
eliminate the term. As one example, and the longest hold-out, in 1988
at its annual meeting the Eugenics Society adopted a resolution that
changed its name to eliminate the word "eugenics". This organization
that had started in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society, was
renamed to the more innocuous "Galton Institute"(Pearson, 1991), to
which I am indebted for the honor of being here today.
How is it possible that the prevention of human suffering has become
identified as evil? From whence has come the unrelenting propaganda
campaign to demonize eugenics, which after all is devoted to the
prevention of suffering and the improvement of mankind? In a word, the
answer is Marxism, including its present incarnation as Politically
Correct modern liberalism.
In order to understand the campaign against eugenics, it helps to
place it in the context of an on-going ideological and political war.
Two general commentaries about the political scene in America, and
that generalize to western civilization, catch the flavor of events
with their titles. One is entitled "It's a War, Stupid!" written by
David Horowitz, Peter Collier and J.P. Duberg (1997). David Horowitz
is one of the more prolific writers among the crop of American
"neo-conservatives"; they are radical-left activists from the 1960s
who have grown up. Horowitz is a self-proclaimed "red-diaper baby",
raised in the communist party atmosphere of New York City. It's a War,
Stupid! Makes the point that a one-sided ideological war has been
going on for much of this century, a war of socialists against
traditional society. As with any war, truth is one of the first
casualties. Horowitz's message is that many of the combatants on the
side of the good guys don't even realize what is going on.
The other title is "America's 30 Years War: Who is winning?", written
by Balint Vazsonyi(1998). Vazsonyi escaped his native Hungary during
the short-lived Revolution of the 1950s. Having lived under two
socialist totalitarian regimes, the Nazi and the Soviet, he is
personally familiar with the tactics. His concern in the book is that
socialism is slowly transforming America. While the liberal media tout
the end of the cold war with the collapse of the Soviet economy, it is
the socialists who are winning a worldwide ideological and political
war. Vazsonyi points out the unique English, Anglo-Saxon roots of what
he calls America's basic founding principles. He identifies four: rule
of law; individual rights; guarantee of personal property; and a
shared cultural identity. These basic principles are slowly being
replaced by socialism. Today we have government-mandated group rights,
government controlled redistribution of property, and divisive
multiculturalism.
The basis for this late-20th century all-out war against eugenics is
that the big winner from the Second-World War was Bolshevism,
international socialism. As early as the 1920s, while many western
progressive socialists were still also eugenicists, Stoddard was
warning of Bolshevism's denial of heredity (Pearson, 1991). Two of
Marxist-Leninist's bedrock ideological underpinnings became
environmental determinism, and radical egalitarianism. In the
socialist state, all differences between individuals or groups are
said to be caused by past exploitation, and since all people are
inherently the same, social engineering can transform the world. Of
course genetics, recognizing both inherited and environmental causes,
is inconsistent with Marxist ideology, and eugenics, the application
of genetic knowledge for the benefit of humanity is anathema to
socialist environmentalism.
Everyone knows of the travesty of post-war science in the Soviet Union
- the 1948 purging of genetics because it was inconsistent with
Politically Correct environmentalism - that became known as
Lysenkoism. Under Lysenkoism the only acceptable explanation for
differences, even among strains of wheat, was environmental
differences, thus they practiced "vernalization", that is, early
education of little plants as they allowed their seed grain to
deteriorate genetically (Soyfer, 1994). Everyone knows of Lysenkoism,
and rightly criticizes the absurdity of denying scientific reality in
the service of an ideology.
Yet today, no one acknowledges the obvious fact that there is no
substantive difference between Lysenkoism and official government
policy toward education in America (Whitney, 1998).
Both of the major political parties entertain various vernalizations
-ever earlier head start programs - while they demonize as "hateful"
or "racist" anyone who suggests that radical egalitarianism and
environmental determinism miss an important part of the real world.
With Political Correctness, and though-control crimes, euphemistically
called "hate crimes", western society is becoming ever more
constricted. In some European countries, such as Germany, one can be
imprisoned for discussing basic science. In the United Kingdom, long
term university faculty can be sacked, as illustrated by Christopher
Brand, lately of Edinburgh University, sacked for the high crime of
telling the truth (Whitney, 1997b).
A favorite attack on eugenics is to equate it with Nazis. In various
ways a slippery slope is argued: official government sanctioning of
eugenic concepts leads inevitably to, racism, anti-Semitism,
euthanasia, genocide, holocaust, and all the rest of it. Confounding
eugenics with Nazism has been so successful a tactic since World War
2, that many people who are interested in eugenics do what they are
suppose to do: hang their head in shame and shut their mouth. However,
what should be shouted is that the whole argument is a sham, another
falsehood.
As Marian Van Court has pointed out, in the first half of the 20th
century, a total of at least 29 countries passed eugenic laws,
including Germany, United States, Canada, Switzerland, Norway,
Denmark, Sweden, Italy, Greece and Spain. One of these advanced
countries proceeded in time of war from euthanasia to genocide. The
other 28 countries did not. One out of 29 does not establish a pattern
(Van Court, 1998). The post-war propaganda linking eugenics to Nazism
and a slippery slope to holocaust is just that: Horrific, continuing
propaganda warfare.
Unintended consequences
The tone and content of this paper is strongly supportive of eugenics.
However, there is one aspect of traditional eugenic programs that I
have concerns about: That is government regulation of any sort.
Voluntary personal decisions are one thing, government coercion is
another. I can think of nothing as grotesque as to have the likes of
Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or Tony Blair making my reproductive
choices.
One problem is that we actually know so little about genetics that it
is terribly premature for government regulation. Imagine what the
central planners that gave us the soviet economy could do with the
vastly more complex human gene pool. Although the Human Genome Project
is well along toward sequencing the bases in a human genome (Whitney,
1997a), we know next to nothing about what most of the genes do. We
don't even know how many there are. Just recently the human mutation
rate was estimated to be considerably higher than previously thought
(Crow, 1999 ). Just in mid-1999 it was reported that the functional
human genome may be one-third larger than previous estimates (Wade,
1999).
Playing in the dark as we are at this time, it may be best to let
people make their own decisions. We do not need totalitarian control,
a set of self-chosen "anointed ones" (Sowell, 1996) controlling the
reproductive behavior of a domesticated proletariat. In little
understood systems we must expect to encounter what we seem to have
encountered, which is unintended consequences.
For example, when effective means of contraception were introduced
last century, some of the main results seem to have been dysgenic
(Lynn, 1996). Sir Francis Galton spoke of ways to test and bring
together promising young men and women so that they would be more
likely to form eugenic matches. This desire for assortative mating was
not a prime reason for the push for women's liberation including
co-educational higher education, but it has been one of the
consequences of young women going to college with young men.
Assoritative mating extends the range of a metrical trait even if
there is no change in gene frequency (Lynch & Walsh, 1998). With the
characteristics of the IQ distribution, if a population raised its
average by only 5 points, it would double the incidence of gifted
people 3 standard deviations above the mean, and cut by half the
number of retarded. Selective higher education may be genetically
stratifying our society, another unintended consequence (Herrnstein &
Murray, 1994; Weiss, 1995).
The legalization of voluntary abortions in the United States in 1973
may have had the unintended consequence of lowering the crime rate in
the 1990s. This is because women at higher risk of raising criminals;
teenage mothers, single mums, blacks, have disproportionately higher
rates of abortion (Donohue & Levitt, 1999).
As a final example of unexpected consequences, consider the effects of
modern medicine on the gene pool. Many eugenicists have lamented the
dysgenic effects of modern medicine that keeps alive severely
affected, genetically anomalous individuals. However, the provision of
supportive medicine may actually reduce the incidence of the
deleterious genes. John Hartung and Peter Ellison (1977) have reported
that, probably due to the psychological and physical stress of caring
for a severely affected offspring, parents of such medically
maintained children tend to have fewer later progeny, enough fewer to
actually reduce the incidence of the responsible genes.
Although we know so little at the present time, our store of genetic
knowledge and reproductive technology is vastly greater than at any
time in the past. And our rate of acquisition of new knowledge and
techniques is accelerating. If we can just educate the people, defeat
the socialist ideologues, and keep the politician's hands off, then,
with the new reproductive technology contributing to the Galtonian
Revolution, a brave, and wonderful, new world awaits us in the new
millennium.
Acknowledgement
I thank Marian Van Court for helpful suggestions on an earlier draft.
Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the
Pioneer Fund.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Bayertz, Kurt (1994). GenEthics: Technological Interventions in Human
Reproduction as a Philosophical Problem. (Translated by Sarah L.
Kirkby). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Cynthia (Ed.) (1996). New Ways of Making Babies: The case of
egg donation. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
Crow, James F. (1999). The odds of losing at genetic roulette. Nature,
397:293-294.
Donohue, John J., and Steven D. Levitt (1999). Legalized abortion and
crime. Stanford CA: Stanford Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory
Working Paper No.1.[http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract
id=174508].
Galton, Francis (1904). Eugenics: Its definition, scope and aims. Read
before the Sociological Society, May 16th, 1904. Reprinted in: Galton,
Francis (1996). Essays in Eugenics (with introduction by Roger
Pearson). Washington DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 35-43.
Gura, Trisha (1999). Repairing the genome's spelling mistakes.
Science, 285: 316-318.
Harris, John (1998). Rights and reproductive choice. In: John Harris &
Soren Holm, Eds., The Future of Human Reproduction, Ethics, Choice,
and Regulation. New York: Oxford University Press, 5-37.
Hartung John, and Paul Ellison (1977). A eugenic effect of medical
care. Social Biology 24, 192-99.
Herrnstein, Richard J., & Charles Murray (1994). The Bell Curve,. New
York: Free Press.
Holden, Constance (1999). Crème de la Crème. Science, 285: 327.
Horowitz, David, Peter Collier, & J.P. Duberg (1997). It's a War,
Stupid! Los Angeles CA: Second Thought Books.
Hotz, Robert Lee (1997). Robert Graham, Founder of exclusive sperm
bank, dies. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times, February 18.
Lau, Edie (1999). Flourescent monkeys may shed a valuable scientific
light. Sacramento CA: Sacramento Bee, August 23.
Lykken, David (1999). The Genetics of Genius. To appear in: A. Steptoe
(Ed.), Genius and the Mind: Studies of Creativity and Temperament in
the Historical Record. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lykken, David. T., T. J., Bouchard, M. McGue, and A. Tellegen, (1992).
Emergenesis: genetic traits that do not run in families. American
Psychologist, 47, 1565-77
Lynch, Michael, and B. Walsh (1998). Genetics and Analysis of
Quantitative Traits. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates.
Lynn, Richard (1996). Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern
Populations. Westport CT: Praeger.
NABER (1996). Report and recommendations on oocyte donation by the
National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction (NABER). In: C. B.
Cohen (Ed.) New Ways of Making Babies: The case of egg donation.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 231-320.
Pearson, Roger (1991). Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe.
Washington DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers.
Pottinger, Matt (1999). High-class Chinese sperm bank proves
controversial. Beijing: Reuters, June 25.
Sowell, Thomas (1996). The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation
as a Basis for Social Policy. New York: Basic Books.
Soyfer, V. N. (1994). Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science.
(Translated by L. Gruliow & R. Gruliow) New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Van Court, Marian (1998). Richard Lynn's "Dysgenics, genetic
deterioration in modern populations"- A review. Journal of Social,
Political, and Economic Studies, 23, # 2, [see also
http://www.eugenics.net]
Vazsonyi, Balint (1998) America's 30 Years War: Who is winning? New
York: Regnery Publications.
Wade, Nicholas (1999). Human genome may be longer than expected. New
York Times, 1 August.
Weiss, Volkmar (1995). The emergence of a cognitive elite: Comment on
The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray. The Mankind Quarterly, 35,
373-390.
Whitney, Glayde (1990). A contextual history of behavior genetics. In:
Hahn, M. E., Hewitt, J. K., Henderson, N. D., & Benno, R. (Eds.),
Developmental Behavior Genetics: Neural, Biometrical, and Evolutionary
Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 7-24.
Whitney, Glayde (1995). Ideology and censorship in behavior genetics.
The Mankind Quarterly, 35, 327-342.
Whitney, Glayde (1997a). Diversity in the human genome. American
Renaissance, 8, #3(March), 1-7.
Whitney, Glayde (1997b). Raymond B. Cattell and the fourth
inquisition. The Mankind Quarterly, 38, 99- 125.
Whitney, Glayde (1998). The Vernalization of Hillary's America.
Chronicles, 22, #2 (February), 46-47.
Wilmut Ian, A.E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A.J. Kind, & K.H.Campbell
(1997). Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells.
Nature, 385(6619), 810-813.
.
|
