Abstract
This paper comes out of a webinar supported by the Woodbrooke Study Centre that asked ‘Eugenics and Quakers: is there a case to answer?’[1] The challenge of this highly sensitive topic is to what extent British Quakers of the first half of the twentieth century were involved in eugenics and how much culpability attaches to that. The article begins by reviewing the scholarship on the English eugenics movement, from the invention of eugenics by Francis Galton through to the movement’s decline in the mid-twentieth century. It draws attention to the difference between negative and positive eugenics, to the Mental Deficiency Act 1913 and to disputes amongst scientists. The second section describes the involvement in eugenics by Quakers, in order of birth-date from Edward Fry to Cedric Smith. The article, thirdly, faces the challenge of contributing to the contested history of eugenics and finds that on balance British Quakers yield a favourable narrative. Some Quakers were complaisant about the Mental Deficiency Act and in one instance used inappropriate language but generally their engagement with eugenics was positive. Quakers contributed to scientific progress and helped create the academic discipline of conflict studies. Dr George Newman, editor of a Quaker periodical and the government’s chief medical officer, curbed negative, authoritarian eugenics and promoted a modern public health programme.
[1] The author wishes to thank Anne Watson, who initiated the webinar, and Joe Cain, Professor of History and Philosophy of Biology, University College, London, for his guidance.
Keywords
eugenics, genetics, Mental Deficiency Act.
How to Cite
Frankel, M. S., (2026) “British Quakers and Eugenics: is there a case to answer?”, Quaker Studies 31(1). doi: https://doi.org/10.16995/qs.27579