18 FEBRUARY 1922, Page 12

NATIONAL WELFARE AND NATIONAL DECAY. [To THE EDITOR OF THE

" SPECTATOR."] SIR,—In your issue of the 4th inst. Mrs. Barrett emphasizes the benefits to be obtained by the transplantation of children from bad homes, benefits which no one denies; but she declares that her experience proves that "a change of environment can overcome bad heredity." The difficulty of disproving any such statement as this depends largely on the difficulty of attaching any clear and precise meaning to it. If it were true that no diffeiences did exist between the germinal foundations from which all of us have sprung, all existing differences between us having arisen from the difference in the environments to which we have been exposed, then the word " heredity " would be meaningless, far heredity is the passing on from one genera- tion to another of such germinal differences thus assumed not to exist. Moreover, it is obvious that hereditary differences do exist in regard to physical qualities, such as colour of hair, stature, &c., and the reasons for believing that the germinal foundations of our mental qualities are not identical, though not so obvious, are based on solid arguments. In fact, not only does the use of the word heredity in such a phrase as "over- coming heredity " admit the existence of germinal differences, but it is only those devoid of biological training who can assert that all men. are created equal, in the sense of having sprung from identical germinal foundations. But once the existence of hereditary qualities is admitted, does it not follow, as I stated in my last letter, that though a child with lead hereditary qualities may he greatly benefited by transplanta- tion, yet its ultimate condition would have been better if it had had a better hereditary endowment? Unless it be assumed that the transplanted child has become perfect, this cannot be denied; and, with this admission, all meaning seems to have evaporated from the statement that its bad heredity has been overcome.

There are, however, other serious and more practical objec- tions to such statements in regard to heredity effects which I should like to briefly touch on. In the first place a well-marked characteristic of certain mentally defective types is that those thus afflicted respond rapidly to any change of environment, being easily led upwards or downwards in social well-being. Whenever this is the case transplantation is certain to produce an exceptionally well-marked improvement. But there is no reason to suppose that the original mental tendency will thus have been obliterated, and if subsequently., the transplanted individual should drift back into bad surroundings the conse- quent deterioration will be equally well marked. The social results of transplantation cannot be fully estimated until the entire life history, not only of the transplanted child, but also of its descendants, is known, for the way in which all these persons will be affected by the ordinary necessitudes of life is an important element in the problem.

May I mention one other point which seems to me very important even without reference to eugenics? There undoubtedly exists a close relationship between the birth-rate and the death-rate of any community, or, in other words, the death of a child will often either increase the probability that its brothers and sisters will survive or that another child will make its appearance in the same family. What is true of the death of a child is doubtless also true in a measure of its transplantation to another home or to an institution, end it follows that the removal of a number of children from the evil contagion of bad homes will increase the number of adults in the nation who will have been born in bad homes. Can this effect of transplantation be regarded with equanimity, even if all reference to heredity be omitted? We all agree that the elimination of children by starvation or carelessness cannot be tolerated, but should we not also admit that here is a problem urgently needing consideration?—I am, Sir, &c:, 11 Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C. 2. LEONARD DARWIN.