State Channeling of Gene Flow by Regulation of Marriage and Procreation

  • Seymour Lederberg


The genetic makeup of an individual is dependent on the genotypes of the germ cells from whose fusion he arose. The number of different genes we carry in each cell is unknown, but is roughly estimated at between 10,000 and 100,000. Each gene may have more than one form called an allele so that we refer arbitrarily to a standard or wild-type allele and variant allele of a given gene. Our body or somatic cells generally have two representatives of each gene, one on each member of a chromosome pair. A person whose alleles for a given gene differ from each other is termed heterozygous for that gene, whereas when the alleles are the same, the person is termed homozygous wild-type or variant. This simple picture is marred by two exceptions: male humans having only one X chromosome have only one representation of the genes of that chromosome, and in either sex some genes may be duplicated extensively.


United States Constitution Equal Protection Fourteenth Amendment Deleterious Gene Cousin Marriage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    United States Constitution, Amendment 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foote, C., Levy, R.J. and Sander, F.E.A., “Cases and Materials on Family Law,” Little, Brown & Company, Boston (1966).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drinan, R.F., The Loving decisions and the freedom to marry, Ohio State Law J. 29: 358 (1968).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid at p. 165.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murphy V. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1884).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ibid at p. 45.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1887).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibid at p. 205.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ibid at pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibid at p. 26.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ibid at p. 29.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Hara, J.B. and Sanks, T.H., Eugenic sterilization, Georgetown Law J. 45: 20 (1956).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robitscher, J., “Eugenic Sterilization,” Charles C. Thomas, Springfield (1973).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ludmerer, K.M., “Genetics and American Society,” Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (1972).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haller, M.H., “Eugenics,” Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick (1963).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Amendment 14. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Smith v. Command, 231 Mich. 409 (1925).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buck v. Bell, 143 Va. 310 (1925).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid at p. 208.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ibid at p. 207.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid at p. 207.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibid at p. 207.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ibid at p. 541.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid at p. 540 and p. 542.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid at p. 544.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ibid at p. 544.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ibid at p. 545.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ibid at p. 546.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ibid at pp. 482–486.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ibid at p. 485, and see NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288 (1964).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibid at p. 495 and p. 496.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    See 37 Supra at p. 453.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    See 38 supra at p. 154.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See 38 supra at p. 154.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    See 38 supra and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 at p. 215.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1966).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ibid at p. 11 and p. 12.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ibid at p. 11 and at Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. at p. 100 (1943).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. at p. 243 (1944).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    See 43 supra at p. 12.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morton, N.E., Crow, J.F. and Müller, H.J., An estimate of the mutational damage in man from data on consanguineous marriages Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (U.S.) 42: 855 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    See 3 supra, Appendices A, B, and C.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Farrow, M.G. and Juberg, R.C., Genetics and laws prohibiting marriage in the United States, J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 209: 534 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    See 46 supra at p. 243.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Brakel, S.J. and Rock, R.S. (eds.), “The Mentally Disabled and the Law,” revised edition, The University of Chicago Press Chicago (1971). The eight states are Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Texas.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, and Oklahoma.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    See 3 supra at p. 372.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia, and Washington.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Scally, B.G., A survey of mentally defective parents and their offspring, in “Human Genetics,” Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Human Genetics, Paris, 1971, pp. 258–262, Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam (1972).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shaw, C.H. and Wright, C.H., The married mental defective, Lancet 1: 273 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Reed, E.W. and Reed, S.C., “Mental Retardation: A Family Study,” W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia (1965). A value of 14.3% retarded children is given at p. 39 in Table 27.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Penrose, L.S., “The Biology of Mental Defect,” Grune and Stratton, New York (1949).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    See 58 supra at p. 40, Table 28.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    See 59 supra at p. 274, Appendix 10 for a tabulation of the Colchester Survey, 1938.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    See 58 supra at p. 34, Table 20.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    See 58 supra at p. 56, Table 40.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    See 58 supra at p. 56, Table 41.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    See 58 and 59 supra.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    See 21 supra at p. 208.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Drake, J.W., Abrahamson, S., et al, Environmental mutagenic hazards, Science 187: 503 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seymour Lederberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Biological and Medical SciencesBrown UniversityRhode IslandUSA

Personalised recommendations