Every nation, people, and tribe has a unique history—the retelling of which evolves over time. The history of the United States that our grandparents learned is likely not the same history college students are now learning (at least according to James R. Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association). Focuses shift in each generation based in part on the dominant historical narrative.

Scientific disciplines also experience this type of historical evolution. In the sciences, one is generally expected to have not only a wide comprehension of current scientific theories but also a general, if not too brief, understanding of the discipline’s historical progression. For example, when does the field of neuroscience emerge? What milestones were achieved along the way?

As mentioned in previous articles, an understanding of the history of science is woefully lacking among scientists. In some cases, this oversight seems inconsequential. In others, however, there appears to be an intentional oversight, a blotting out of the less-than-positive episodes in scientific development. One such episode is the eugenics movement of the late nineteenth century.

Pioneered by Francis Galton, half-cousin of Charles Darwin, eugenics was rooted in genetic research that sought to link human ability, specifically intelligence, to heredity. In one neurology course, the first two classes were devoted to examining the milestones of neurological progress. Galton, integral to the formation of cognitive neuroscience, was briefly mentioned as coining the term “nature vs. nurture” and proposing the idea of hereditary intelligence. Next slide.

This glossing over of such an important topic was shocking. After combing throughout the entirety of the material for those classes, I discovered not a single blemish in the record of cognitive science and neurological studies. It is as if all the controversial research did not exist. It was a masterfully woven tale that left one with little understanding of the not-so-glamorous branches of neurology.

Have we not done the exact opposite with American historical research? In most history classes, I hear more about America’s faults than her glories. Slavery, the KKK, McCarthyism, forced child labor. The beautiful balance of recognizing both strands in our history allows for a better understanding of who we are as a nation and how we came to be. The same should be followed in the sciences. Scientific disciplines are not immune to embarrassing events; in fact, emerging from those events are some of the most revolutionary changes in the disciplines. These stories, however, are not popular narrative.

Stay tuned next week for a deeper look into the effects of the eugenics movement on academic disciplines.