Philos Theor Pract Biol (2018) 10:X book symposium EugenicThinking1 Robert A. Wilson∗2 34 The Eugenic Mind Project explores and critiques both past and present eugenic thinking.5 Informed by the perspectives of Canadian eugenics survivors in the province of Alberta6 and standpoint theory, The Eugenic Mind Project draws on both my intimate acquaintance7 with eugenics in Canada and my previous thinking about the cognitive, biological, and8 social sciences, the fragile sciences. It recounts the history of eugenics and the thinking that9 drove it, and critically engages contemporary manifestations of eugenic thought, newgenics.10 Accessible to philosophers of the biological and social sciences, historians of science and11 medicine, bioethicists, and those working on race, disability, or gender, the book aims to12 enrich ongoing discussions about human nature and human diversity, the social uses of13 biotechnology, and social policies governing future generations.14 15 Keywords16 disability • eugenics • human diversity • human kinds • human nature • immigration restriction •17 newgenics • prenatal screening • sterilization • standpoint theory18 part of an author-meets-critics book symposium on The Eugenic Mind Project by Robert A. Wilson (MIT19 Press, 2018), with Kendig 2018, Love 2018, and Schloegel 201820 Projects of human improvement take both individual and intergenerational forms. The bios-21 ciences provide many technologies, including prenatal screening and the latest gene editing22 techniques, such as CRISPR, that have been viewed as providing the means to human improve-23 ment across generations. But who is fit to furnish the next generation? Historically, eugenics24 epitomizes the science-based attempt to improve human society through distinguishing kinds25 of people and then implementing social policies-from immigration restriction to sexual steril-26 ization and euthanasia-that influence and even direct what sorts of people populate our future.27 Despite recognition of the horrors of the eugenic extremes of the past and of the subhumaniz-28 ing of those sufficiently below appearance or ability norms to be viewed as "defective" or "unfit",29 many people continue to be drawn to strands of eugenic thinking.30 The Eugenic Mind Project is a wide-ranging, philosophical book that explores and critiques31 both past and present eugenic thinking. It draws on my intimate acquaintance with eugenics32 ∗Department of Politics and Philosophy, La Trobe University, Melbourne Victoria 3086, Australia rwilson.robert@gmail.com Received 24 June 2018; Accepted 19 July 2018 DOI:10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.00X  open access ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 2 in North America, a familiarity generated by working closely over an extended period of time33 with survivors of eugenics in the Canadian province of Alberta. That work began shortly after I34 moved to the University of Alberta from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 2000.35 In teaching a few standard weeks on eugenics that focused on Nazi and American eugenics, just36 as I had in my "Biology and Society" course at Illinois, at Alberta I found myself educated37 by students who knew something about eugenics that I didn't. They had such knowledge not38 because of some previous, special course of study but because some of their living relatives had39 been sterilized under the auspices of The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta, a provincial law40 in place from 1928 until 1972. While their knowledge as young adults here was not firstbut41 second-hand, it soon led me to meet people even more closely connected to what I thought of42 as the eugenic past, people who had been institutionalized and sterilized putatively in accord43 with The Sexual Sterilization Act. Revelations about the university (indeed, department) that I44 had just joined as a professor of philosophy also brought eugenics closer to home.45 Over time, a small number of those who had lived through a eugenic past became my friends.46 Although the book occasionally draws on ideas-such as the leading idea in Chapter 8-that47 emerged from our pairwise and small group conversations and other interactions-the influence48 of these friendships on my thinking about eugenics has been more pervasive than this may49 suggest. A recent essay in Aeon, "Eugenics never went away", that I had originally entitled "The50 feeling of eugenics", gives perhaps the clearest sense of how my experiences while at Alberta51 have shaped the approach to eugenics taken in the book.52 The Eugenic Mind Project draws on my previous work on the cognitive, biological, and so-53 cial sciences, the fragile sciences, particularly in my Boundaries of the Mind and Genes and the54 Agents of Life. It identifies eugenics itself amongst the fragile sciences at the interface of late55 nineteenth-century ideas about the mind, biology, and sociality, recounts the history of eugen-56 ics and the thinking that drove it, explores the roots of eugenic thinking, and critically engages57 contemporary manifestations of eugenic thought, newgenics. And like much of the burgeoning58 scholarship on eugenics, it aims to provoke and enrich discussions about human nature and hu-59 man diversity, about the social uses of biotechnology, and about social policies governing future60 generations.61 Anything more than passing knowledge of the history of eugenics between 1865 and 194562 typically leads those engaged in reflection on the contemporary biosciences to raise questions63 about the potential misuse of emerging ventures in biotechnology. That reflection casts at least64 a shadow of caution over future uses of existing reproductive technologies to create so-called de-65 signer babies and to discard embryos or fetuses that do not measure up to either ideals or norms.66 Contemporary philosophers and bioethicists have sometimes seen their role in terms of escap-67 ing from that shadow in sorting the wheat from the chaff of eugenics, using their conceptual68 acumen to identify defensible forms of, or aspects to, eugenics.69 A shadow of caution certainly pervades the general scholarship on eugenics and can be found70 in the earliest and most influential work on the history of eugenics. In his preface to the second71 edition of In the Name of Eugenics, the historian Daniel Kevles cautioned that the "specter of72 eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics" (1995, ix).73 And the sociologist Troy Duster's Backdoor to Eugenics likewise presciently warned of eugenic74 futures being created by the backdoor of individual choice. For both Kevles and Duster, the75 dangers of dormant eugenic ideas remain nascent in present and emerging biotechnologies. The76 message here has been clear: understand past eugenics, critique present eugenics, avoid future77 eugenics.78 Despite that message, there remains a feeling of distance between ourselves and the eugenic79 past to which, I believe, our collective scholarship has inadvertently contributed. In my view,80  open access-ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 3 this is in part because that scholarship has developed largely without attention to the perspective81 of eugenics survivors themselves. By adopting what I call a standpoint eugenics-eugenics from82 the standpoint of those who have survived and those who continue to survive eugenics past and83 present-The Eugenic Mind Project attempts to dispel whatever lingering feelings of distance84 from a eugenic past remain. From that standpoint, the pro-eugenic, arm's-length bravado shown85 particularly by philosophers and bioethicists in sorting the wheat from the chaff in eugenics past,86 present, and future have a different feel to them.87 I have already signalled that, in my own case, that feeling of distance dissolved through my88 personal connections with Alberta students and survivors of eugenics for whom eugenics was89 not at arm's length at all. But eugenics came closer to home in another way due to peculiarit-90 ies of the history of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Alberta. While there91 were a number of students in my class who had relatives who had been sterilized on eugenic92 grounds, many more were familiar with the history of eugenics in the province because in the93 immediately preceding years-roughly 1995 until 2000-over 900 cases for wrongful confine-94 ment and sterilization had been filed against the Province of Alberta, the vast majority of which95 had been eventually settled by the government of then premier Ralph Klein. These actions fol-96 lowed the successful lawsuit of a very brave and persistent woman, Leilani Muir, with whom I97 became particularly close friends. In the course of both Leilani's case and those settled in light98 of it, the activity of Alberta's "Eugenics Board" came under critical scrutiny, much of which was99 widely reported in popular media venues. That board was headed for most of its history-right100 through until 1965-by the founding chair of Philosophy at the University of Alberta, John101 MacEachran, who is also the university's longest-serving Provost.102 The introductory chapter, "Standpointing Eugenics", locates and explains my personal and103 professional interests in eugenics and expands upon these remarks. It says a little more about Al-104 berta's eugenic past, briefly describes the five-year, federally-funded project-theLivingArchives105 on Eugenics in Western Canada project-that brought together eugenics survivors, students, re-106 searchers, and community leaders to engage around the topic of eugenics, and attempts to be107 more explicit about the impact of working directly with eugenics survivors. Identifying what I108 call institutional complicity and engaged individuality as two dimensions anchoring the ensuing109 discussion in the book, the chapter concludes by discussing recent cases of the sterilization of wo-110 men and girls with intellectual disabilities in Australia in 2012, Latina and African-American111 women in the California prison system in 2013, and low-caste women in India in 2014. The112 chapter as a whole raises questions about the relationships between eugenics past and present.113 To take one posed and discussed in some of the recent historiography (e.g., Levine and Bash-114 ford 2010; Paul 2016; Reilly 2015), casting it here in my own terms: how does eugenic thinking,115 The Eugenic Mind, continue on beyond the 80-year social movement, ending in 1945, that was116 eugenics? And to take one that is perhaps original to the book and central to the chapters in117 Part Two of it: where does The Eugenic Mind come from?118 This introductory chapter is the first of four chapters in Part One that focus on particular119 activities central to my perspective on eugenics: standpointing, characterizing, specifying, and120 subhumanizing. Drawing on Francis Galton's early characterization of eugenics to offer a work-121 ing characterization of eugenics useful for understanding eugenic thinking more generally, the122 second chapter, "Characterizing Eugenics", positions eugenics as an applied science and a so-123 cial movement and identifies the importance to The Eugenic Mind of the idea of sorts of people.124 The chapter discusses the place of race, ethnicity, and disability in the practices of The Eugenic125 Mind, identifying feeblemindedness or mental deficiency as a central eugenic trait. Although126 the chapter covers much ground that is well-trodden by historians of eugenics, the focus on127 the kind of thinking that permeates eugenics distinguishes the perspective that emerges. Con-128  open access-ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 4 centrating on what I call the short history of eugenics from 1865 to 1945, the chapter also129 reaches back to interrogate the claim that eugenics also has a long past and suggests an intimate130 connection between eugenics past and present thinking.131 What were the traits that some people had that made them targets of eugenics in the past?132 We can answer this question by exploring research publications, popular culture, and marriage133 and immigration laws. But the most powerful way to determine what a eugenic trait is in-134 volves examining eugenic sexual sterilization legislation. The third chapter, "Specifying Eugenic135 Traits", contains a synoptic view of all such legislation passed in North America in the twentieth136 century across thirty-five jurisdictions. By comparing the province of Alberta's sexual steriliz-137 ation law and its implementation to American eugenic laws, the chapter shows the role that138 institutionalization played in the social mechanics of eugenics and underscores the centrality of139 mental health to The Eugenic Mind. It concludes by drawing out some general conclusions140 about three eugenic traits and their atypical presence in Canadian eugenics: syphilis, Hunting-141 ton's, and epilepsy.142 Chapter 4, "Subhumanizing the Defective", takes up themes of life worthiness and subhu-143 manization in The Eugenic Mind. The question "what sorts of people should there be?" re-144 mains live for philosophers and bioethicists who have reopened consideration of eugenics under145 headings such as "liberal eugenics" or "procreative beneficence". Yet that consideration typically146 neglects the significance of the subhumanization of the targets of eugenics in the short history of147 eugenics. Within standpoint eugenics, subhumanization looms large in continuing discussions,148 particularly by philosophers and bioethicists, of the differential life worthiness of different sorts149 of people. Discussing the relationship between eugenics and euthanasia and the forms that sub-150 humanization took in Alberta's eugenic past, as well as recent challenges that cognitive disability151 has posed to philosophical ethics in discussions of newgenics, the chapter illustrates standpoint152 eugenics in action. It concludes with reflection on a recent, widely discussed case involving in-153 tellectual disability, that of the child known in both the academic literature and social media as154 "Ashley X".155 The next four chapters constitute Part Two of the book and focus on understanding the156 persistence of eugenics and what I call its social mechanics. The fifth chapter, "Where Do Ideas157 of Human Variation Come From?", begins by returning to consider the prosociality that mo-158 tivates eugenic interventions and its relationship to views of human diversity and variation. It159 articulates a novel problem, what I call the puzzle of marked variation, and outlines four ini-160 tial desiderata that a response to the puzzle should meet. The puzzle of marked variation is161 quite general and can be raised with respect to many ways of sorting people, but this chapter162 focuses on its application to categories of disablement and their relationship to sub-normalcy.163 The chapter argues that the appeal to biopolitics and the socially constructed nature of disability164 offered by those drawing on the work on Michel Foucault-such as Lennard Davis, Nikolas165 Rose, and Shelley Tremain-are more limited than is suggested by their popularity in explor-166 ations of the relationship between disability and eugenics. The chapter concludes by drawing167 on a variant of the open question argument against naturalism in ethics that traces back to the168 philosopher G. E. Moore to extend the list of desiderata for responses to the puzzle of marked169 variation.170 The desiderata introduced in Chapter 5 not only help to identify problems with the ap-171 peal to biopolitics in discussions of eugenics and disability but also suggest that the puzzle of172 marked variation has both psychological and social dimensions. Beginning with a point about173 human vulnerability that can be traced to the work of the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes174 and drawing on my past and ongoing work on situated cognition and collective intentionality,175 Chapter 6, "A Socio-Cognitive Framework for the Puzzle of Marked Variation", introduces176  open access-ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 5 a general framework for addressing the puzzle of marked variation that straddles the fragile177 sciences of cognition and sociality. It discusses what is distinctive about human sociality and178 prosociality and identifies the cognitive demands that each makes. As a species, we have de-179 veloped distinctive forms of cognition that are situated, extended, and collective and which are180 integral to our prosociality. The resulting cognitively-mediated normativity we possess allows181 us to distinguish between sorts of people. That, in turn, creates the possibility of treating those182 who are perceived or thought of as being like us-as being of our kind-differently than we treat183 others. In postulating a "like us" detector and clarifying the idea of first-person, plural mechan-184 isms, the chapter specifies the nature of some of the socio-cognitive mechanisms hypothesized185 as being operant in The Eugenic Mind.186 Chapter 7, "Backdoors, Newgenics, and Eugenics Underground", returns to consider in187 more detail appeals to newgenics, the so-called backdoor to eugenics, and issues arising at the188 interface of contemporary bioethics and disability. Working with the disability theorist Rose-189 marie Garland-Thomson's idea of a eugenic logic, the chapter recasts the debate over the disab-190 ility rights critique of prenatal screening with selective abortion and identifies newgenic strains191 in contemporary bioethical thinking about procreation. My aim with respect to the first of these192 has been to keep the focus squarely on selective abortion and disability without entering larger193 debates over, or the history of, reproductive rights and abortion (cf. Dyck 2013, chap. 7–8).194 The discussion of selective abortion and disability here shares with the original disability rights195 critiques offered by Adrienne Asch and Marsha Saxton the assumption that abortion is in gen-196 eral permissible. Yet like those critiques, my discussion also shares the permanent possibility197 of being appropriated by "pro-life" factions in debates over abortion, possibilities heightened198 in present US politics. The application of the principle of procreative beneficence, articulated199 and defended by the philosopher Julian Savulescu to argue that reproduction should be free of200 disability, is rejected and the general character of eugenics under neoliberalism identified and201 critically discussed. The chapter, which draws in part on joint work with Matthew Barker and202 Joshua St. Pierre, concludes with a discussion of eugenic silencing by focusing on autism and203 self-advocacy.204 The eighth chapter, "Eugenics as Wrongful Accusation", completes the exploration of the205 persistence of eugenics by introducing another dimension to the social mechanics of eugenics.206 It begins with a question about eugenics after 1945: how is it that eugenic practices, such as207 sterilization, didn't simply disappear or cease? In offering an answer to this question, the chapter208 further develops the socio-cognitive framework, working very much across the borders that are209 usually drawn between the social and the psychological and further documenting the corres-210 ponding continuities between eugenics past and newgenics present. The subject matter here is211 not the origins of our ideas of human variation, as in Chapters 5 and 6, nor their manifestation212 in contemporary newgenics and the continuity between eugenics and newgenics, as in Chapter213 7; rather, it is the persistence of old-fashioned eugenics itself.214 The novel perspective that the chapter introduces is to view eugenics as wrongful accusa-215 tion, a phenomenon best understood through a paradigm example: the ritual sexual abuse cases216 predominant in the 1980s and 1990s. The explanatory value of this assimilation of eugenics to217 such cases lies in what it reveals about the psycho-social dynamics of eugenics. Here the chapter218 draws on the work of Judith Herman on trauma and witnessing, though it takes those ideas in a219 direction that Herman herself (and those whom she has influenced in thinking about witnessing220 and sex crimes) would likely resist.221 Having introduced the idea of standpoint eugenics early in Chapter 1, the book has pro-222 ceeded by approaching The Eugenic Mind from the perspectives of eugenics survivors. In the223 final two chapters, which make up Part Three, the discussion returns to reflect more explicitly224  open access-ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 6 on the nature of standpoint eugenics itself. Chapter 9, "Knowing Agency", develops the idea of225 what I call knowing agency at the margins by drawing on standpoint theory in epistemology, with226 particular attention given to the standing and credibility of cognitive disability in philosophy.227 There is a kind of unacknowledged epistemic apartheid in approaches to the general idea that228 knowledge is contextual that itself shapes how marginal knowers are viewed in the discipline of229 philosophy. The politics of epistemic apartheid-between feminism and analytic epistemology,230 for example-forms part of the context in which the possibilities for standpoint eugenics can231 be envisaged and assessed. What it's like to occupy the marginalized standpoint of cognitive232 disability is conveyed through a discussion of the work and perspective of Eva Kittay.233 The final chapter, "Standpoint Eugenics Unbound: Survivorship for the Subhuman", artic-234 ulates and takes up some of the internal complexities to applying standpoint theory to eugenics235 and disability. Standpoint theory applies paradigmatically to class and gender, and has been236 deployed with respect to other examples, such as race and sexuality within feminist standpoint237 theory. The generalization of standpoint theory to disability, particularly intellectual disability,238 faces distinctive problems that derive from the focus of standpoint theory on class and gender239 and the kind of view of the dynamics of knowing agency from the margins that holds in these240 cases. Here I make use of the ideas of joint action and extended action familiar from the cognit-241 ive sciences, and, taking my cue from work in the philosophy of biology, raise questions about242 the significance for standpoint eugenics of the intrinsic heterogeneity of categories of disable-243 ment. Whether there are the sorts of people posited in The Eugenic Mind is an issue that also244 affects the prospects for a robust standpoint eugenics. Perhaps we will need to be satisfied, after245 all, with a standpoint-ish eugenics, a perspective on eugenics that takes seriously themotivations246 for and orientation of standpoint theory but which stops short of applying an adapted form of247 standpoint theory to eugenics and disability.248 Acknowledgments249 I want to thank the participants in this multiauthor review for their probing of some of the ideas in The250 Eugenic Mind Project, both here (Schloegel 2018; Love 2018; Kendig 2018) and in the author-meets-251 critics symposium they participated in at ISHPSSB 2017 in São Paolo, Brazil. I would also like to thank252 the journal and its editors for their enthusiasm about the format and topic, and an anonymous reviewer253 for helpful feedback. I would also like to acknowledge the financial support of the Social Sciences and254 Humanities Research Council of Canada for the Living Archives on Eugenics in Western Canada project255 (2010–2016).256 Literature cited257 Agar, Nicholas. 2004. Liberal Eugenics: In Defence of Human Enhancement. Malden, MA: Blackwell.258 Asch, Adrienne. 1989. "Reproductive Technology and Disability". In Reproductive Laws for the 1990s,259 edited by Sherrill Cohen and Nadine Taub, 69–124. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press.260 Asch, Adrienne. 2003. "Disability Equality and Prenatal Testing: Contradictory or Compatible?" Flor-261 ida State University Law Review 30 (2): 315–342.262 Davis, Lennard. 1995. Enforcing Normalcy: Deafness, Disability and the Body. London: Verso.263 Duster, Troy. (1990) 2003. Backdoor to Eugenics. New York: Routledge.264 Dyck, Erika. 2013. Facing Eugenics: Reproduction, Sterilization, and the Politics of Choice. Toronto: Uni-265 versity of Toronto Press.266  open access-ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 7 Garland-Thomson, Rosemarie. 2012. "The Case for Conserving Disability." Journal of Bioethical In-267 quiry 9 (3): 339–55.268 Herman, Judith Lewis. (1992) 1997. Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books.269 Kendig, Catherine. 2018. "Considering the Role Marked Variation Plays in Classifying Humans: A270 Normative Approach". Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10 (X). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/271 10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.0010.00X. TODO: FILL IN272 Kevles, Daniel. (1985) 1995. In the Name of Eugenics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.273 Kittay, Eva Feder. 2009. "The Personal is Philosophical is Political: A Philosopher and Mother of a274 Cognitively Disabled Person Sends Notes from the Battlefield." Metaphilosophy 40 (3–4): 606–275 627. Also reprinted in Cognitive Disability and its Challenge to Moral Philosophy, edited by Eva276 Feder Kittay and Licia Carlson, 393–413. New York: Wiley-Backwell.277 Kittay, Eva Feder. 2017. "The Moral Significance of Being Human". Proceedings and Addresses of the278 American Philosophical Association 91: 22–42.279 Levine, Philippa, and Alison Bashford. 2010. "Introduction: Eugenics and the Modern World". In280 The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics, edited by Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine,281 3–24. New York: Oxford University Press.282 Love, Alan C. 2018. "Philosophy in the Trenches: Reflections on The Eugenic Mind Project". Philo-283 sophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10 (X). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.16039257.284 0010.00X. TODO: FILL IN285 Muir, Leilani. 2014. A Whisper Past: Childless after Eugenic Sterilization in Alberta. Victoria, BC:286 Friesen Press.287 Paul, Diane. 2016. "Reflections on the Historiography of American Eugenics: Trends, Fractures, Ten-288 sions". Journal of the History of Biology 49: 641–58.289 Reilly, Philip R. 2015. "Eugenics and Involuntary Sterilization: 1907–2015". Annual Review of Genom-290 ics and Human Genetics 16: 351–368.291 Rose, Nikolas. 1985. The Psychological Complex: Psychology, Politics and Society in England 1969–1939.292 London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.293 Savulescu, Julian. 2001. "Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children". Bioeth-294 ics 15 (5/6): 413–426.295 Saxton, Marsha. 1984. "Born and Unborn: The Implications of Reproductive Technologies for People296 with Disabilities". In Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood, edited by Rita Arditti, Ren-297 ate Duelli Klein, and Shelley Minden, 298–312. London: Pandora Press.298 Saxton, Marsha. 1997. "Disability Rights and Selective Abortion". In Abortion Wars: A Half Century of299 Struggle, 1950–2000, edited by Rickie Solinger, 374–395. Berkeley, CA: University of California300 Press.301 Schloegel, Judy Johns. 2018. "The Historiography of Eugenics, Eugenic Expertise, and The Eugenic302 Mind". Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 10 (X). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ptpbio.303 16039257.0010.00X. TODO: FILL IN304 Tremain, Shelley. 2001. "On the Government of Disability." Social Theory and Practice 27 (4): 617–305 636.306 Wilson, Robert A. 2004. Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences: Cognition. New307 York: Cambridge University Press.308 Wilson, Robert A. 2005. Genes and the Agents of Life: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences: Biology.309 New York: Cambridge University Press.310  open access-ptpbio.org wilson: eugenic thinking 8 Wilson, Robert A. 2015. "The Role of Oral History in Surviving a Eugenic Past". In Beyond Testimony311 and Trauma: Oral History in the Aftermath of Mass Violence, edited by Steven High, 119–138. Van-312 couver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.313 Wilson, Robert A. 2017. "Collective Intentionality in Non-human Animals". In Routledge Handbook314 on Collective Intentionality, edited by Marija Jankovic and Kirk Ludwig, 420–432. New York:315 Routledge.316 Wilson, Robert A. 2017. "Group-level Cognizing, Collaborative Remembering, and Individuals". In317 Collaborative Remembering: Theories, Research, and Applications, edited by Michelle Meade, Penny318 Van Bergen, Celia Harris, John Sutton, and Amanda Barnier, 248–260. Oxford: Oxford Univer-319 sity Press.320 Wilson, Robert A. 2018, "Eugenics Never Went Away." Aeon Magazine, June 5, 2018. https://aeon.co/321 essays/eugenics-today-where-eugenic-sterilisation-continues-now.322 Wilson, Robert A., and Matthew J. Barker. in press. "Well-Being, Disability, and Choosing Children".323 Mind.324 Wilson, Robert A., and Joshua St. Pierre. 2016. "Eugenics and Disability". In Rethinking Disability:325 World Perspectives in Culture and Society, edited by Patrick Devlieger, Beatriz Miranda-Galarza,326 Steven E. Brown, and Megan Strickfaden, 93–112. Antwerp: Garant Publishing.327 © 2018 Author(s)328 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-329 NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license, which permits anyone to download, copy, dis-330 tribute, or display the full text without asking for permission, provided that the creator(s) are given full331 credit, no derivative works are created, and the work is not used for commercial purposes.332 ISSN 2475-3025333  open access-ptpbio.org