↓ Skip to main content

“Culling the Herd”: Eugenics and the Conservation Movement in the United States, 1900–1940

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 503)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
24 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
“Culling the Herd”: Eugenics and the Conservation Movement in the United States, 1900–1940
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10739-011-9317-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Garland E. Allen

Abstract

While from a late twentieth- and early twenty-first century perspective, the ideologies of eugenics (controlled reproduction to eliminate the genetically unfit and promote the reproduction of the genetically fit) and environmental conservation and preservation, may seem incompatible, they were promoted simultaneously by a number of figures in the progressive era in the decades between 1900 and 1950. Common to the two movements were the desire to preserve the "best" in both the germ plasm of the human population and natural environments (including not only natural resources, but also undisturbed nature preserves such as state and national parks and forests). In both cases advocates sought to use the latest advances in science to bolster and promote their plans, which in good progressive style, involved governmental planning and social control. This article explores the interaction of eugenic and conservationist ideologies in the careers of Sacramento banker and developer Charles M. Goethe and his friend and mentor, wealthy New York lawyer Madison Grant. In particular, the article suggests how metaphors of nature supported active work in both arenas.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Professor 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 9 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 20%
Arts and Humanities 13 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 14%
Environmental Science 6 8%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2024.
All research outputs
#890,741
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#7
of 503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,157
of 169,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 169,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them