Francis Galton: The man who drew up the 'ugly map' of Britain

Model DNA double helix

One hundred years after the death of Francis Galton, the "father of eugenics", geneticists are increasingly baffled by the nature versus nurture debate, writes Professor Steve Jones.

Type the phrase "scientists find the gene for" into Google and 68,000 results appear. Most of the hits are about human beings - which is a pretty impressive number, given that we have only 20,000 genes altogether.

The hits include genes for depression, religiosity, insomnia, marital failure and, perhaps surprisingly, premature ejaculation.

Does what we are born with make us what we will become, or is it the way we live? Newspapers tend to believe in nature - DNA, while sociologists go for nurture - the environment.

As they learn more, geneticists are finding that they have less and less of an idea about which is more important, or whether the question means anything in the first place.

Charles Darwin had an equally brilliant, but less well-known, cousin. He died 100 years ago in 1911.

Francis Galton Galton applied statistics to many things, including the efficacy of prayer

This year is Galton year - a celebration of Francis Galton, a genius - but a flawed genius. He did many surprising things. He was the first person to use fingerprints in detective work and the first to publish a weather map, in the Times newspaper in 1875.

Galton is best known for his interest in inheritance. His book Hereditary Genius is sometimes said to have founded human genetics, and Galton founded the science (if that is the right word) of eugenics.

Its main aim was "to check the birth rate of the Unfit and improve the race by furthering the productivity of the fit by early marriage of the best stock".

Beauty map

At his death, he left the then enormous sum of £45,000 to found the Laboratory of National Eugenics at University College London (UCL).

The term was soon abandoned by UCL, although we still have a Galton Professorship. Even so eugenical ideas of good genes, bad genes, and all the rest is still very much in the public mind.

In fact, the most important part of Galton's work had nothing to do with eugenics, for he was one of the first to realise that science - biology as much as physics - needs maths rather than words. He was one of the founders of the science of statistics, and he measured many things.

He made statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer - he got into trouble for that for he found that those people frequently prayed for, like monarchs, lived no longer than anyone else.

Find out more

  • Four Thought was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 at 2045 BST on Wednesday 15 June 2011

He even made a beauty map of Britain, based on a secret grading of the local women on a scale from attractive to repulsive (the low point was in Aberdeen).

In a letter to Nature in 1879 entitled The Average Flush of Excitement, Galton recounts a visit to the Derby. He noted that while he was there he was able to assess what he called "the average tint of the complexion of the British upper classes" by observing the distant crowd through his opera glass.

He observed that after the race started, the crowd became "suffused with a strong pink tint, just as though a sun-set glow had fallen upon it". Galton found that he could work out the mood of a mass of people even without being able to distinguish one person from the next.

Some of his work has a strong resonance in modern science. Everyone knows that tall parents tend to have tall children, but Galton was the first to do some measuring.

He noted that the children of two six-footers tended to be tall, but not quite as tall as their parents. He called that "regression to the mean" and we now know that it happens because lots of genes are involved, with some hidden by others.

Sex is a way of mixing those genes - of reshuffling the genetic cards - and the child tends to inherit a more average kind of hand than that received by either of their exceptionally tall parents.

Of course, the environment is involved too. Food, exercise, good health, all are important in deciding how tall one will become. For height, and for almost anything else, nature and nurture always work together. It makes no sense to try to separate them.

Bao Xishun, who was the world's tallest man, poses with his new wife in 2007 in Inner Mongolia We know of more than 50 different genes associated with height

That has not percolated into the public mind, as the Google search for "scientists find the gene for" shows. The three letter word for - the gene FOR something - is the most dangerous word in genetics. As Galton did not realise and as headline writers still do not, it is almost entirely ambiguous.

'A gamble'

A few months ago, the press reported with impressive unanimity that "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is genetic". To the rolling of publicists' drums (and geneticists' eyes) came the news that some children behave outrageously because they inherit damaged DNA.

The Daily Mail came out with a hand-wringing piece entitled "Are some children just born bad?", which claimed "previous thinking was flawed and that some children, through no fault of the parents, are simply bad seeds".

That's an outrageous statement. Geneticists need to remind the public how little the word "genetic" actually means. One gene can do very different things, and the same thing can be under the influence of many genes - and nurture nearly always gets a look-in.

With all the fantastic technology now available, within a year we should be able to read a whole human genome in 15 minutes. But the biggest problem faced by geneticists is that we are not finding the genes.

Take height. As Galton noticed, height is highly heritable. We can now reach the scene of crime - the DNA - with the greatest of ease. The mappers have used their molecular tape measures on about 30,000 people.

They have found more than 50 different genes associated with being tall or short but altogether they account for only one-twentieth of the total variation needed to explain the similarity of children to their parents.

Where are the missing genes? We do not know.

Take adult diabetes, now a major health problem, and one that certainly runs strongly in families. Genome scans reveal scores of different bits of chromosome as possible culprits but together they explain just one part in 20 of the overall inherited liability to the disease.

The chance of being born with a predisposition to a common illness such as diabetes or depression is a gamble with huge numbers of cards.

So many small cards can be shuffled that everyone who falls ill fails in their own fashion and no gene says very much about whether or not you will get the illness (although the number of cheeseburgers you eat certainly does).

Steve Jones is a professor of genetics at University College London


More on This Story

In today's Magazine

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 124.

    The legacy of Galton's 'enquiring mind'
    his invention of 'Eugenics' a 'science'
    legitimised a radical biological interpretation
    of the varieties of human life.
    His idea resulted in the death of millions of people.

    The 100th anniversary of his death should be a time for
    UCL to distance itself from the Galton Fund
    and to at least create a memorial to all the victims of Eugenics.

  • rate this

    Comment number 123.

    When it comes to adopting children out to other nations, some nations prefer to keep the healthier children and adopt out either a problem or a disabled child, because they need their citizens to be fit for labor markets and enterprises. there's no shame in eugenics, there's only shame in how far one is willing to run with the idea. when is the line crossed?

  • rate this

    Comment number 122.

    Ideas for encouragement for fit parents to breed early and much as possible was not a bad idea at all, if you take the man’s time into context. Children were dropping dead. The rate of diseases that could claim a child’s life were staggering against their rates of survivability. The concept of eugenics was a way for parents to carry on.

  • rate this

    Comment number 121.

    The people that abused his ideas are to blame. There are those that augment original research for their own gain. They feel justified. That is why you the masses feel justified to place him under the same umbrella as those that would do ethnic cleansing and racially motivated genocide.

  • rate this

    Comment number 120.

    Why's there a need to equate Francis Galton life’s work to eugenics alone. Clearly he made a lot of contributions other than eugenics. To my knowledge there's nothing malice about the man. He made observations and shared them with the rest.
    There are no objectives other than his sci-fi work. futurologists & sci-fi writers always anticipate the world as it can be. Very few people scorn them.


Comments 5 of 124


Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • Audi R8Best in show

    BBC Autos takes a look at 10 of the most eye-catching new cars at the 2015 Geneva motor show


  • Kinetic sculpture violinClick Watch

    The "kinetic sculpture" that can replicate digital files and play them on a violin

Try our new site and tell us what you think. Learn more
Take me there

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.