Cancelled by his college
IMO, the accusations in the article really don&#x27;t hold up under a broader examination of Fisher&#x27;s views on eugenics and his work as a whole.<p>Quotes in this comment come from<p>Bodmer, W., Bailey, R.A., Charlesworth, B. <i>et al.</i> The outstanding scientist, R.A. Fisher: his views on eugenics and race. <i>Heredity</i> 126, 565–576 (2021). <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1038&#x2F;s41437-020-00394-6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1038&#x2F;s41437-020-00394-6</a><p>With full text available at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41437-020-00394-6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;s41437-020-00394-6</a><p>I highly recommend you read this paper if you&#x27;re interested in a deep exploration of these topics.<p>I&#x27;ve also paraphrased a few things here, but, go easy on me.  This is a HN comment, ya know, not an academic paper.  It&#x27;s not my intention to plagiarize anyone here. :)<p>---<p>FISHER THE EUGENICIST<p>Fisher absolutely was a eugenicist, but not in the way in which that word is typically colored by its association with the Nazis.  His concept of eugenics was more along the lines of a set of methods by which a population could improve itself via controlled or regulated breeding.<p>This concept, as espoused by Fisher, was certainly extremely <i>classist</i>, as he regarded people of high intelligence and leadership ability, whom he referred to as the &quot;higher classes&quot; as inherently more valuable than others, among which would fall people such as tradesmen and unskilled laborers (&quot;lower classes&quot;).  And, he did support the Eugenics Society&#x27;s position in favor of <i>voluntary</i> sterilization of &quot;feebleminded&quot; individuals as part of a way to realize his eugenic vision, and this was the view espoused in the 1934 Brock Report.<p>FISHER AS RACIST<p>The closest he ever comes to advocating any kind of racist idea is when he suggests in his comments on the 1952 UNESCO statement on &quot;The Race Concept&quot; that:<p>&gt; &#x27;...available scientific knowledge provides a firm basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development,&#x27; seeing that such groups do differ undoubtedly in a very large number of their genes.<p>It&#x27;s not clear whether he intends the word &quot;groups&quot; to mean &quot;races&quot; in any sense in which we would think of it today.  In any case, he does not go so far as to suggest that some &quot;groups&quot; may be generally superior to others.  And, remember, he holds out eugenics as a way in which <i>any</i> population may &quot;improve&quot; itself, such as by increasing the overall intelligence level of the population by preventing people of lower intelligence from being born.  This is the context in which we should take &quot;his support for von Verschuer’s &#x27;elimination of mental defectives to benefit the German racial stock,&#x27;&quot; as noted in the posted article.  (I&#x27;ll return to von Verschuer in a moment.)<p>He does, however, write in private correspondence:<p>&gt; I am sorry that there should be propaganda in favour of miscegenation in North America as I am sure it can do nothing but harm. Is it beyond human endeavour to give and justly administer equal rights to all citizens without fooling ourselves that these are equivalent items?<p>Given the man was born in 1890, I think we can forgive him this belief, which was extremely common right up until the day he died in 1962.<p>ASSOCIATION WITH VON VERSCHUER<p>Now, as regarding von Verschuer and his association with Mengele, there is no evidence Fisher even knew of this association, or that von Verschuer approved in any way of Hitler&#x27;s genocide against the Jewish people.  Indeed:<p>&gt; Richard Goldschmidt, who had been forced to leave his position in Germany because he was Jewish, supported Verschuer as “a fine and sympathetic person” and “an exceptional scholar in his field and one of the most knowledgeable medical geneticists.”<p>In fact, available evidence indicates that Fisher&#x27;s relationship with von Verschuer was purely scientific, without any racist ideology whatsoever.<p>SUMMARY &#x2F; CONCLUSION<p>So, in summary, looking at the 6 allegations mentioned in the article (paraphrased):<p>(1) Fisher was a racist:<p>True, but not in his professional work, and not apparently more so than most people were ~100 years ago.<p>(2) He believed in forced sterilization:<p>Patently false.  He never advocated forced sterilization, only <i>voluntary</i> sterilization.<p>(3) He was a co-author of the Brock Report of 1934 calling for the legalization of compulsory sterilization:<p>The Brock Report, as a publication of the Eugenics Society, did not advocate compulsory sterilization, only <i>voluntary</i> sterilization.<p>(4) He took a favorable view of Nazi eugenics:<p>There is absolutely no evidence of this, and, in fact a good amount of evidence that he would <i>not</i> have been in favor of Nazi eugenics in any way whatsoever.<p>(5) He corresponded with Otmar von Verschuer, a German geneticist and supervisor of Josef Mengele, efore and after the Second World War:<p>True, but von Verschuer&#x27;s connection to Mengele was not well known until after the war.  And, even then, Fisher&#x27;s contacts with von Verschuer were on a professional level, devoid of any sort of ideology, much less racist ideology.<p>(6) He supported von Verschuer’s “elimination of mental defectives to benefit the German racial stock”:<p>True, but, again, this must be viewed in the context of Fisher&#x27;s view on eugenics as a whole, and his utter lack of support for forced sterilization.<p>So, it seems that upon taking a broader view of Fisher&#x27;s views on eugenics and his professional writings, <i>none</i> of the charges hold up.