The work of Julian Herman Lewis helps to expose the underlying racial organization of laboratory normality in early twentieth-century medicine. In the 1920s and 1930s, Lewis launched a critique of prevailing racial theory, as he established an academic career in pathology at the University of Chicago. As one of the small number of black research physicians at the time, Lewis met barriers to his work that eventually derailed his career. Although his research fell short of its goals, his work continues (...) to provide a key insight into medical laboratory standards as they became institutionalized in Lewis’s field of clinical pathology. By avoiding attributions of race and following prevailing practices of racial exclusion, medical laboratories quietly reasserted social norms in the formation of laboratory normality. An examination of Lewis’s critiques and his research sharpens questions about the development of the concept of “normal” in the human sciences and a related tendency in twentieth-century medicine to conflate difference with pathology. (shrink)

This essay introduces an anthropological practice that remains largely unexplored in the historical literature on racial science: biometrics. In the early twentieth century, biometricians analyzed skull measurements using novel statistical methods to demonstrate racial biological differences. Drawing on new archival material, the essay reveals how these biometric data practices challenged racist anthropology. Between 1934 and 1952, Geoffrey Morant, an expert on biometry and race in Karl Pearson’s Biometric Laboratory in London, mobilized biometry to debunk Nazi racial theories. He informed the (...) public about Nazism’s fallacies in The Races of Central Europe (1939) and his UNESCO pamphlet The Significance of Racial Differences (1952). Unlike anti-racism campaigners such as Ashley Montagu, however, Morant did not dismiss the biological reality of race in his fight against Nazi racism. The essay shows that the coexistence of anti-racist and racializing practices was not paradoxical but, rather, an important feature of the anthropological study of human variation in the twentieth century. (shrink)

The 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico included innovative practices and technological knowledge of human biology. The first time that cytogenetic techniques had been applied to athletes was in the 1966 European Athletics Championship in Budapest and used on Olympic athletes for the first time in Mexico in 1968. The Genetics and Human Biology Program was created for this purpose in 1966 in close collaboration with the Local Organizing Committee, by Mexican geneticists Alfonso León de Garay and Rodolfo Félix Estrada who (...) led the project. The main objective was to study the genetic and anthropological components which determine an Olympic athlete’s abilities. This investigation studied 1,265 game participants and included family studies, cytological analyses, research on single genes, and the study of sex determination. In terms of influence beyond Mexico, this Program was significant as a site of transnational collaboration. It mobilized cognitive and financial resources, scientific practices, and material culture to set up a clinical laboratory in the Olympic Village. The Program also hosted three international seminars in Mexico City, two before the games, to calibrate clinical trials and anthropological tests. One in 1969 to analyze the results and proceed to their publication in 1974. This manuscript will focus on the PGBH to show how its work fits in the larger tapestry of post-1945 human biological studies. Also, to explore how the Olympic athlete populations studied can be considered laboratories of knowledge production or sites of cognition conceived as specific entities for scientific inquiry, standardization of medical practices, and the production or application of medicines. Finally, through the narrative of the different trajectories and collaborations of the leaders of the PGBH, this manuscript will show how contact between their scientific practices brought cytogenetics and sports together. (shrink)

What happens to twentieth-century race science when we relocate it to the Global South? North Atlantic debates have dominated the conceptual history of race. Yet there is suggestive evidence of a “southern” or antipodean racial distinctiveness. We can find across the Southern Hemisphere greater interest in racial plasticity, environmental adaptation, mixing or miscegenation, and blurring of racial boundaries; endorsement of biological absorption of indigenous populations; and consent to the formation of new or blended races. Once we recognize the Global South (...) as a site of knowledge making, and not just data extraction, the picture of race science in the twentieth century changes. Once situated, or displaced, the conventional North Atlantic history of race science in the twentieth century comes to seem exceptional—and no longer normative. (shrink)