Ask a Eugenicist
The Repository for Germinal Choice
Marian Van Court
1,002 words
Whatever happened to the Repository for Germinal Choice? I read that it closed in 1999, but were the children born from this program ever studied?
All prospective parents signed statements promising that they would take part in surveys in the future, but I remember Robert Graham saying that when they sent out questionnaires about the children, many parents never returned them, so this was a source of frustration and disappointment to him. He understood their desire to protect their privacy, but he wanted very much to follow the children to see how they turned out, yet this study was never done. I interviewed him in Austin, Texas in 1983 for a small publication I edited, The Eugenics Bulletin. I also met with Graham maybe a dozen times or so over the years for lunch, dinner, or coffee. (As a man, I found him to be warm, kind, gracious, and very smart.)
The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank, by David Plotz, was published in 2006. Plotz, a journalist, wrote a series of articles about The Repository, and each time he published one, people who had been involved with The Repository – mothers, children, and even a few donors – contacted him. Of the over 200 children born from this program, he eventually communicated with 30. Some children even met their donors.
It’s an interesting book, although I detected several inaccuracies and instances of bias. For example, he writes something to the effect that “William Shockley loved attention.” This kind of statement naturally raises a red flag about an author’s objectivity because it’s such a transparent cheap shot.
Plotz portrays Graham as a kook who thought he could create a bunch of little geniuses, but that’s demonstrably false, and quite frankly, I suspect that Plotz knew it was false when he wrote it. Nowhere in Graham’s book or in his interviews did he ever say he expected all geniuses to be born from this program, a majority of geniuses, or even half-geniuses. So why did Plotz characterize Graham that way, in the complete absence of any evidence to support it? Perhaps Plotz felt obligated to forsake truth and conform to standard journalist scorn and ridicule for fear of being ostracized by the “politically correct club,” and a “kook” may be a better subject for book sales than a courageous, innovative, and altruistic man.
Graham had amassed a fortune, and he was no fool. He understood mutations, regression to the mean, and other basic facts of genetics, and he understood probability, and he told me once that, as a matter of chance, there were bound to be a few Repository children who were not blessed genetically, possibly one with something as serious as Down’s syndrome.
Graham said in his interview with me: “Look at it from the point of view of the parents. These are couples who want a child, but can’t have one because the husband is infertile. With this program, they can have a child, and they can maximize the probability [my emphasis] of having a bright, healthy and creative child. Consider the child, too. As a consequence he spends his life with the genes of the donor, as well as those of the mother. Why not provide the best genes possible?”
In spite of his obvious bias, Plotz tells some interesting stories about the children, the mothers, and the donors, some positive and some not, but given questions about his credibility, it’s difficult to know how much faith to have in them. However, by far the most important thing I learned from the book is that The Repository really revolutionized artificial insemination.
Before The Repository, most doctors inseminated patients whose husbands were infertile with little concern about the donors. Prospective mothers were sometimes able to select the donor’s hair and eye color, but little else. The Repository opened in 1980, and it gave much more detailed information about each donor – in addition to his coloring, his height and weight, age, occupation, accomplishments, hobbies, athletic pursuits, whether he played a musical instrument, often his IQ, and so on. Donors also had to pass very thorough medical exams. Suddenly women didn’t need doctors anymore. They had the power to choose what they wanted, and this changed everything. From the very beginning, there was far more demand for sperm than The Repository could provide. Despite constant indoctrination by the media that genes don’t matter, apparently many women weren’t so easily brainwashed. The Repository demonstrated that, overwhelmingly, they wanted the very best sperm. Paul Broder, who worked for Graham, later co-founded his own sperm bank, the California Cryobank, and he readily acknowledges his debt to Graham. Basically, all sperm banks became eugenics sperm banks because The Repository showed that that’s what women want.
Today, California Cryobank, one of the largest sperm banks with over 200 donors and offices in Los Angeles, Palo Alto, and Cambridge, provides a great deal more information on donors than did the Repository, and it charges for the information, and for the sperm. It also pays donors. Whereas The Repository gave “germinal material” only to married women with infertile husbands, nowadays sperm banks also cater to lesbians and single women.
According to Plotz, there have been about a million children born from artificial insemination in America as of the year 2000, with around 30,000 more born each year. Graham was disappointed that The Repository children were never studied, but the whole point of studying them was to show how well they turned out, so other sperm banks might follow his lead. The study would have been interesting, but it was largely a means to an end. Graham died in 1997, but he accomplished his objective much faster than he anticipated because The Repository revolutionized sperm banks. Half the genetic heritage of upwards of a million children – with many thousands more each year – has been greatly improved as a result, and that is a huge victory for eugenics.
Ask%20a%20Eugenicistandnbsp%3BThe%20Repository%20for%20Germinal%20Choice
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
Related
-
Making a Difference by Resigning from the Gene Pool
-
Henry Fairfield Osborn, Race Scientist and Pro-White Activist
-
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 574: James Tucker on George Grant and Nationalism
-
“An Ethnostate, If You Can Keep It”
-
Israeli War Zone Genetics
-
Paleface Go Injun Pow-Wow
-
Race and IQ Differences: An Interview with Arthur Jensen, Part 5
-
Race & IQ Differences: An Interview with Arthur Jensen, Part 4
5 comments
This article makes me more optimistic.
But it would be good to have data on who signs up for this. If the practice were to become more widespread but still expensive, it might mean the hyper-class detaching itself further from the masses, Gattaca-style.
This is a good thing under present circumstances, because it preserves good genes that might otherwise be lost to the future. Everyone should look at the questionnaires potential sperm donors have to fill out. It is an astonishingly eugenic selective process. However, like all good things under the present regime, it could be improved by being part of a genuinely racial-populist regime that would make eugenics available to all people of genetic quality, not just the rich.
I can’t help but wonder what H G Wells, biologist,the father of Science Fiction and a proponent of free love would have written on the subject of eugenics if he had been born a little later than he actually was.
As it stands he wrote in his The Open Conspiracy (1928) that To exaggerate the dangers and evils of miscegenation is a weakness of our time. (p109)
Dr. Graham was, in my mind, the last academic scientist who, firstly, acknowledged a true spirit of racial obligation; secondly, he was a dedicated academic and scientific Western spirit, seeking the deeper meaning of consciousness and direction.
I was privileged to correspond with him for several years, and he was kind enough to comment on my early work, Rise of The West, in which he supported the major and minor points.
When he passed, his ‘children’ destroyed his written works, sold his equipment at rock-bottom prices, and generally erased his contributions to the ‘Future of Man’.
Until the ‘heart and soul’ of Western man is reaffirmed, embraced, and lived, such figures will live only in the memories of a few, and this Article has done a great service to that memory.
In response to Sandyw — H.G. Wells was a big proponent of eugenics. Wells wrote, “It seemed to me that to discourage the multiplication of people below a certain standard, and to encourage the multiplication of exceptionally superior people, was the only real and permanent way of mending the ills of the world.” Pretty cool, huh?
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.