Gene Warfare

 

During the late 19th and early 20th century there was a social movement known as the "eugenics movement."  This movement occurred in the context of widespread fear and nativism. The aim of this movement was to eliminate, or at least physically remove, so-called Abad seeds@ from an otherwise healthy American soil. This was based upon the theory of eugenics which holds that certain problem behaviors are inherited and can be reduced and perhaps eliminated altogether by preventing the carriers of so-called "bad seeds" from reproducing.  This theory was based in part on the idea that there are certain groups - especially racial groups - who are inherently "defective" (it was during this same period of time that the term "defective delinquent" was popular), somewhat less than human and naturally inferior.  Not surprisingly, this theory fit in well with the prevailing "social Darwinism" ideology that white Europeans were naturally superior and just about every other racial stock was inferior.  The "evidence" produced by "scientific" studies "proved" the theory.   Thousands were eventually either imprisoned, deported, sterilized, given frontal lobotomies or just plain killed.  And not surprisingly, those originally singled out for social control were immigrants from southern European countries (especially Italians). Later Jews, Hispanics, Japanese and eventually African-Americans would be targeted.

Just when we thought such repressive programs were buried forever in the past, the eugenics movement has been resurrected once again.  Today it is called by other terms, but the procedures, and the faulty theory behind it, is the same.  This time we are once again relying upon so-called "scientific" theories and procedures.  Once again we are targeting racial minorities and the poor.  Once again we are operating under the assumption that there are "bad seeds" out there producing bad people.  This time, however, there is something new: drugs.  Let's look at this more carefully.

 

It's in the genes

 

Dr. Gail Wasserman, a professor of Child Psychiatry at Columbia University, is in charge of one of the most recent in a long line of attempts to get to the so-called Aroot causes A of violent crime.  What are these Aroot causes@?  They are supposedly found in the genes of certain kinds of children.  What kinds of children?  Let Dr. Wasserman tell you: AIt is proper to focus on blacks and other minorities as they are over represented in the courts and not well studied.@  So she and her colleagues decided to Astudy@ these Apredisposed to violence@ youth - all males, all minorities, ages 6 to 10 - by giving them doses of a dangerous drug called fenfluramine, the main ingredient in the diet drug Afen phen.@  These children, who had no criminal record, but were considered to be at Ahigh risk@ (code word for poor urban minorities) for future violence, were given a dose of this drug in order to examine the effects of Aenvironmental stressors@ on levels of serotonin in these boys.  Fenfluramine, by the way, was eventually withdrawn just a few months later after this Aresearch@ was completed (late 1997) because, among other things, it causes potentially fatal heart valve impairments in many patients, plus brain cell death in others.  This information comes from a recent book by two noted medical doctors, Ginger and Peter Breggin, called The War Against Children of Color: Psychiatry Targets Inner City Youth (Common Courage Press, 1998) and an article appearing in the current issue (April, 2000) of Z Magazine by Mitchel Cohen (ABeware the Violence Initiative Project@).

For several years supporters of these biological explanations of criminal behavior received support from so-called Atwin studies@ that purported to Aprove@ that there was a Acrime gene@ and that the environment was only indirectly responsible for such behavior by Atriggering@ behaviors just Awaiting to happen.@  Despite research debunking such theories, the supporters continued the same argument; even after one of their own Aexperts,@ the English scientist Cyril Burt, was totally discredited by using fabricated data in his Atwin studies@ that Aproved@ that certain races were inherently born with low intelligence, which led to their Apropensity@ to commit crime.

 

"Predisposed" to violence

 

The genetic explanation was re-born with the publications of two books in the 1980s and early 1990s, The Bell Curve and Crime and Human Nature.  What these publications did was to reopen old wounds in the debate by suggesting that certain racial groups were inherently inferior and, more importantly, Apredisposed@ to violent acts.  It opened up still another door: the use of certain drugs to Acontain@ these Aviolent propensities.@

In 1989, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Public Health Service issued a report calling for strategies of intervention in Aminority homicide and violence.@  Ironically the report cited as causes of violence factors like poverty, unemployment, homelessness, the availability of guns and the glorification of violence within American culture.  Yet its recommendation for prevention would focus on identifying individuals and modifying their behavior - mostly, as it turned out, with medication.  The report flatly stated that: ATargeting individuals with a predisposition to, but no history of, violence would be considered primary as in programs to screen for violent behavior.@  This would require Atools to facilitate screening out high-risk individuals for early intervention.@  Such screening would target hospital emergency rooms, health centers, jails and schools Aat the lowest levels@ where Aacting out@ behavior can be identified and dealt with.  Perhaps more importantly, the program would conduct research Aon the biomedical, molecular, and genetic underpinnings of interpersonal violence, suicidal behavior, and related mental and behavioral disorders.@ 

 

Targeting infants

 

More alarmingly is the fact that infants would be a central focus, with many studies starting at birth.  After all, so the logic goes, there must be biological factors present at that age that would predict later violent behavior!   It does not take much of an imagination to deduce whose children would be the target of such Ainterventions.@  In fact, subsequent developments of these various violence initiatives often specifically stated that the children of the poor and racial minorities would be the target, as suggested by the quote from Gail Wasserman.  Or take the Afindings@ of a paper delivered at a 1989 conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science claiming that there is research showing that whites and Asians are superior to African-Americans who, the paper claims, are Asmaller brained, slower to mature, less sexually restrained and more aggressive.@  This is not the 19^th century, nor even the 1930s and 1940s, when such racist beliefs were generally accepted. It's the 21st century where we are supposedly more "enlightened."

            The Department of Justice soon got into the action with its AProgram on Human Development and Criminal Behavior.@ Illustrating the "scientific" basis of this program and the role of academics in legitimating such movements, it should be noted that both the director and co-director of this project were, respectively, Felton Earls, Professor of Child Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Albert J. Reiss, Professor of Sociology at Yale=s Institute for Social and Police Studies.  (The search for the Agenetic@ source of criminal behavior has always been led by noted academics.  The early eugenics movement was at least indirectly supported by academic criminologists, sociologists and anthropologists from Harvard University, among others.  Such support is crucial for the continuation of such programs.) This program would screen and identify children as Apotential offenders@ that are Ain need of preventive treatment or control.@  Specifically, the research would target nine groups starting in infancy and then at ages 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24.  The key question to be answered would be, according to the directors of the research: AWhat biological, biomedical, and psychological characteristics, some of them present from the beginning of life, put children at risk for delinquency and criminal behavior?@

 

Guess who's providing the funding?

 

Led by psychiatrists and funded by some of the largest pharmaceutical companies (such as Lilly, the maker of Prozac, Pfizer, Upjohn, Hoffman-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories and many more), there is now underway a program of Aresearch@ called the Violence Initiative Project, with additional funding provided by the National Institute of Mental Health.  The Acrime control industry@ has now expanded to include what may be called the Adrug control industry@ as all sorts of alleged Aproblem behaviors@ exhibited by children are viewed as biological in nature, and in some cases genetic.  As Breggin and Breggin write: AChildren=s disorders and disruptive or violent behavior in particular remain growth markets. Powerful vested interests, including giant pharmaceutical firms, stand to profit mightily from proposed applications of biological research.  Biomedical researchers and their labs and institutes will not readily fold or refrain and retool for a wholly different kinds of research.@  

Government- and drug-company sponsored research will include examining infants in order to predict who will and who will not be the future Acriminals.@  Rather than seek out some of the most common social sources of violence - racism, poverty, poor schools, unemployment, etc. - and attempt to reduce or eliminate them, the funding sources will target individuals and the so-called Aprecursors of violent behavior@ like Aattention deficits@ and Ahyperactivity@ which, says one 1994 planning document, Amanifest early on.@

 

Fighting violence with drugs

 

Once more so-called Aexperts@ are trying to predict violence.  Dr. Wasserman, in her application for funding for the Violence Initiative Project through the National Institute of Health, claims that AGenetic and neurobiological research holds out the prospect of identifying individuals who may be predisposed to certain kinds of criminal conduct...and of treating some predispositions with drugs and unintrusive therapies...Such research will enhance our ability to treat genetic predispositions pharmacologically...@ Of course the Aviolence@ they are talking about is that being committed by the poor and racial minorities. Not surprisingly, no one is suggesting testing the children of congressmen and senators, plus children of Fortune 500 CEO=s (including the children of drug company executives), even though these individuals have historically been responsible for a great deal of death and destruction around the world (as any cursory review of white collar and corporate crime research will reveal).  After all, those responsible for such violence are not about to have their genetic makeup Aput under the microscope.@  These experts are deliberately targeting the poor and racial minorities simply because their very presence pose a threat to the powers that be, just as certain European immigrants posed a threat in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

The research cited by supporters of such theories is very selective and ignores the vast research that disproves any linkage between biology (including genetics) and crime, especially violent crime.  The causes are social, not biological.  Indeed, numerous studies have shown that those who commit the most heinous acts of violence have suffered, from an early age, incredible humiliation and brutality from their caretakers (often witnessing one violent act after another).  Inevitably they begin to engage in similar acts against others, as the victim becomes the victimizer.  It has nothing to do with genetics; it has everything to do with one=s immediate environment. And violence is further perpetuated by the violence within our own culture.

 

The responsibility of intellectuals

 

American society is, to put it bluntly, a very violent society.  And most of the violence has been committed by those in power (mostly white, by the way) against those without power.  As I have suggested in one of my regular columns in this paper, Americans have been responsible for a great deal of what has recently been called Aethnic cleansing,@ although politicians and the media have been applying the term very selectively. Examples abound: the genocide of the Native American population, the subjugation of African slaves, the eugenics movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th century, the deportation of Chinese-Americans and Italian-Americans, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans in Arelocation centers@ during World War II, the murderous rampages of the Klu Klux Klan, the McCarthy era Awitch-hunt,@ plus the numerous invasions directed towards other countries, plus our support (with money, training and ammunition) of totalitarian dictatorships around the world (especially in Latin America), mostly in support of corporate interests.  More examples could be cited endlessly (interested readers should consult some of the books written by Noam Chomsky, Michael Parenti and Howard Zinn for careful documentation of such Aethnic cleansing@).