The U.S. Government Asks,
"Are Black People Genetically Violent?"
b y Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Director, Center for the Study of Psychiatry
and Ginger Ross Breggin Research and Education Director Center for Study
of Psychiatry
In the spring of 1992, the Center for the Study of Psychiatry disclosed
the planned federal psychiatric violence initiative and began a national
campaign to stop it from gaining full momentum. The federal violence initiative
includes ongoing research into the supposed biological basis of inner-city
violence; but we are more concerned about proposals for biomedical social
control put forth by the director of the National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH), Frederick Goodwin, and scheduled for full funding in 1994. The plans
involve a massive psychiatric screening program through inner city public
schools and, presumably, pre-school programs, since Goodwin wishes to identify
violence-prone children as young as age two. The intention is to psychiatrically
treat minority group children who presumably have biochemical and genetic
defects that will make them violent when they grow up. This inevitably will
mean the mass drugging of helpless, innocent inner city children, as well
as a gross government intrusion into their lives and the lives of their
families. Much of the federal government's effort has gone into denying
the existence or the racist intent of the violence initiative. Meanwhile,
a new federally-sponsored report has come out that presents a virtual blueprint
for the violence initiative, directly linking it to the control of inner
city violence in the black community.
The National Academy of Sciences Joins the Controversy The new report, by
the National Research Council (NRC), was released in the fall of 1992 with
a 1993 publication date. It is entitled Understanding and Preventing Violence.
The National Research Council is extraordinarily prestigious and influential.
It was organized in 1916 by the National Academy of Sciences "to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes
of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government."
The study was sponsored by three federal agencies, the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), the Justice Department, and the National Science Foundation.
It drew heavily on research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
and NIMH. The mandate was to dev elop future policies in regard to violence
in America, and its focus was on urban violence.
The National Academy of Sciences, the parent group of the National Research
Council, was chartered by Congress in 1863 as "a private, nonprofit,
self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare." The final report exemplifies
the dangers of applying a "scientific" and "engineering"
mandate to social problems and political policy.
The report closely parallels Goodwin's proposals, focusing on the inner
city and recommending that even younger children, "as early as the
age of 4 months" (p. 160), be studied for potential violence. The report
points to "ethnicity" and "poverty"-and hence the inner
city-as the major variables predicting physical violence. By any standard,
it brings an unusually heave biological and genetic emphasis to bear. The
November 13 New York Times headline announcing the report aptly read "Study
Cites Biology's Role in Violence Behavior." The Council report discusses
many supposed biological variables related to violence, including serotonin
and other "biomedical measures" and "neurological markers
for violence potentials." Its final recommendations for "Research
in Neglected Areas" uses language similar to Goodwin's violence initiative,
calling for "systematic searches for neurological markers for persons
with elevated potentials for violent behavior."
The National Research Council directly advocates further research on drugs
for violence. It urges "systematic searches for medications that reduce
violence behavior without the debilitating side effects of "chemical
restraint." (p. 24)
Violence initiative interventions are described and promoted. They are called
"Multicommunity Longitudinal Studies" and include research on
"neurological measures . . . . as is ethically and technical feasible"
as well as actual "interventions" at the "biological"
level (p. 25). The report looks forward in the future to "unparalleled
opportunity to examine the relationships between biomedical variables and
violent behavior" (p. 158).
No conclusive evidence for the role of genetics in violence is found by
the Council, and studies it cites show the opposite-that genetics plays
no role in violence. Since the report identifies the poor ethnic minorities
in the inner city as its main concern, the genetic studies would inevitably
focus on African Americans. If enough are conducted with the usual high
degree of bias, surely some will end up "proving" what so many
seem bent on trying to prove.
What is the report's attitude toward race? It explicitly focuses on minorities
and especially black people. The Council refers to "socioeconomic status"
and "ethnic status" as major predictors of violence (pp. 70-71).
It observes, "Blacks are disproportionately represented in all arrests,
and more so in those for violent crimes than for property crimes."
The data are presented with no hint that rates of arrest might reflect racist
attitudes of the arresting police officers or institutional racism within
the criminal justice system. It does not hint at any of the social factors
that lead to arrests for violence, such as the seeming necessity of violence
for survival purposes among young men in the inner city.
Finally, the National Research Council lets down its guard and shows its
true colors. The study offers a list of "Key Questions" under
"Research Priorities." Key question number one is, "Do males
and black persons have a higher potential for violence than others and,
if so, why?" (p. 380, emphasis added).
Notice that the target group is not black males but "black persons,"
as if the Council is suggesting that the possible genetic vulnerability
toward violence involves all African Americans.
The mention of males along with black persons seems gratuitous, aimed at
diminishing the racist impact. There is almost no disagreement that males
are more physically violent than females. Besides, the Council report show
little interest in males in general, and much interest in ethnic and poor
minorities, who are its primary focus and concern. The use of the term "black
persons" represents the smoking gun of racism in this report and in
the violence initiative. It contradicts statements made by Fred Goodwin
and by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Louis Sullivan, that
government research and interventions show no sign of targeting black people.
The aim of the Council report is to set government policy in years to come.
It is presented as a scientific consensus rather than as a political policy,
and therein lies the grave danger. It makes more likely the possibility
that the Clinton administration will continue to support a biomedical violence
initiative on the mistaken grounds that it is based on science rather than
politics. Even if it does not lead to a grand-scale violence initiative,
the Council report will encourage continued support for the far-flung research
program that is already in place in various agencies and the addition of
similar research projects in the future. For further information on the
violence initiative, write to the Center for the Study of Psychiatry, 4628
Chestnut Street, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
Reprinted from The Rights Tenet, Winter/Spring 1993