I
THE QUESTION OF HEREDITY
In his testimony before the British Interdepartmental Committee on Physical Deterioration, Dr. Alfred Eichholz, one of H. M. Inspectors of Schools, a Doctor of Medicine, and formerly Fellow and Lecturer of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, said:—
“I have drawn a broad distinction between physical degeneracy and hereditary deterioration. The object of my evidence is to demonstrate the range and the depth of degeneracy among the poorer population, and to show that it is capable of great improvement—I say improvement purposely even within the areas of the towns—and to show that there is a lack of any real evidence of any hereditary taint or strain of deterioration even among the poor populations of our cities. The point which I desire to emphasize is that our physical degeneracy is produced afresh by each generation, and that there is every chance under reasonable measures of amelioration of restoring our poorest population to a condition of normal physique.
“I draw a clear distinction between physical degeneracy on the one hand and inherited retrogressive deterioration on the other. With regard to physical degeneracy, the children frequenting the poorer schools of London and the large towns betray a most serious condition of affairs, calling for ameliorative and arrestive measures, the most impressive features being the apathy of parents as regards the school, the lack of parental care of children, the poor physique, powers of endurance, and educational attainments of the children.... While there are, unfortunately, very abundant signs of physical defect traceable to neglect, poverty, and ignorance, it is not possible to obtain any satisfactory or conclusive evidence of hereditary physical deterioration—that is to say, deterioration of a gradual retrogressive permanent nature, affecting one generation more acutely than the previous. There is little, if anything, in fact, to justify the conclusion that neglect, poverty, and parental ignorance, serious as their results are, possess any marked hereditary effect, or that heredity plays any significant part in establishing the physical degeneracy of the poorer population. In every case of alleged progressive hereditary deterioration among the children frequenting an elementary school, it is found that the neighborhood has suffered by the migration of the better artisan class, or by the influx of worse population from elsewhere. Other than the well-known specifically hereditary diseases which affect poor and well-to-do alike, there appears to be very little real evidence on the prenatal side to account for the widespread physical degeneracy among the poorer population. There is, accordingly, every reason to anticipate RAPID amelioration of physique so soon as improvement occurs in external conditions, particularly as regards food, clothing, overcrowding, cleanliness, drunkenness, and the spread of common practical knowledge of home management. In fact, all evidence points to active, rapid improvement, bodily and mental, in the worst districts, so soon as they are exposed to better circumstances, even the weaker children recovering at a later age from the evil effects of infant life. (P. [20].)
“To discuss more closely the question of heredity may I in the first instance recall a medical factor of the greatest importance: the small percentage of unhealthy births among the poor—even down to the very poorest. The number of children born healthy is even in the worst districts very great. The exact number has never been the subject of investigation, owing largely to the certainty which exists on the point in the minds of medical men—but it would seem to be not less than 90 per cent.
“I have sought confirmation of my view with medical colleagues in public work, e.g. public health, poor law, factory acts, education, and in private practice in poor areas, and I have also consulted large maternity charities and have always been strengthened in this view. In no single case has it ever been asserted that ill-nourished or unhealthy babies are more frequent at the time of birth among the poor than among the rich, or that hereditary diseases affect the new-born of the rich and the poor unequally. The poorest and most ill-nurtured women bring forth as hale and strong-looking babies as those in the very best conditions. In fact, it almost appears as though the unborn child fights strenuously for its own health at the expense of the mother, and arrives in the world with a full chance of living a normal physical existence.... The interpretation would seem to be that Nature gives every generation a fresh start.”
[Q. 558. There is a fresh chance of getting rid of rickets with every generation?]
“Yes; rickets, malnutrition, low height, poor weight, anæmia, and all the other circumstances of neglected existence. It is from the moment of birth that the sad history begins,—the large infant mortality, the systematic neglect, the impoverishment of the constitution,—the resulting puny material which is handed over to the school to be educated.
“... It seems clear that every generation receives its chance of living a good physical life, and when to the fact of the large proportion of healthy new births we couple the evidence of improving health and physique in children who pass up the poorer elementary schools, it seems clear that we are not dealing with a hereditary condition at all, but with a systematic postnatal neglect by ignorant parents, and that heredity, if it makes for anything, makes for recuperation, and so do the other social forces which are brought into play in dealing with the poorer population.” (P. [31].)—Report of the Committee, Vol. II.
Dr. Edward Malins, M.D., President of the Obstetrical Society of London and Professor of Midwifery in the University of Birmingham, was examined upon the same subject. From the Report of the Committee (Vol. II, p. 136), the following extracts are taken:—