Source: French to English Tester Published on: 2026-04-23
Source: The Conversation – in French– By Allane Madanamoothoo, Associate Professor of Law, EDC Paris Business School
What had been designed as an educational tool by Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon in France was imported by psychologist Henry Goddard to the United States at the beginning of the 20th century and quickly turned into an instrument of social sorting in that country. Today, Californian start-ups offer wealthy parents to rank their embryos according to their potential intelligence quotient (IQ), while Donald Trump uses it as a rhetorical weapon against his opponents.
The Americans’ obsession with intelligence quotient (IQ) dates back to the eugenic theses of the early 20th century and persists to this day. It manifests sometimes through actions, sometimes through words. In both cases, the consequences pave the way, as in the past, for racist and eugenic practices.
The importation, translation, and adaptation of the Binet-Simon test by Henry Goddard
The intelligence measurement test designed in 1905 byAlfred Binet and Théodore Simon, thenrevised in 1908 and 1911and commonly called “IQ test” later, was initially intended toto enable children with learning difficulties to catch up on their delay. Imported to the United States in 1908 by the psychologistHenri GoddardFollowing his trip to Europe, he was very quickly diverted from his initial duties after being translated and adapted with a certainlack of rigoron the American continent.
Goddard, who was both afervent eugenicistand director of the Vineland Training School – a school for children with physical and mental disabilities – in New Jersey, was one of the leaders of this diversion. He translated and adapted the 1908 version which he tested on childrenFrom 1911. Goddard divided them intothree categoriesand classified them according to their degree of deficiency in:
-
“idiots” (2 years of mental age),
-
“imbeciles” (3 to 7 years of mental age)
-
“feebleminded” (8 to 12 years of mental age) which he also referred to by the term“morons”(crudely translated into French as “cretins”).
According to Goddard, the “feeble-minded” represented the greatest risk to society because they could “reproduce easily.” He also thought — at least during onecertain weather– that the latter were overrepresented among criminals, prostitutes, and alcoholics.
In 1913, Goddard took part in the systematic evaluation ofimmigrantsat the reception center ofEllis Islandvia the IQ test, translated and adapted, despite sociocultural and linguistic factors. The judged immigrants“feeble-minded”were sent back to their country of origin.
Research Gate
The IQ test had also been used to justify forced sterilizations following the rulingCarrie Buck v. Bell, rendered by the Supreme Court on May 2, 1927. The Court authorized the forced sterilization of a young woman, Carrie Buck, wrongly institutionalized after having been raped, on the false grounds of promiscuity and an alleged “hereditary low IQ.” Her mother, her daughter, and she had all three been labeled “feebleminded” as a result of an IQ test. In his conclusion, Justice Oliver Holmes stated:
“It is better for the whole world that, instead of waiting to execute degenerate descendants for crime, or letting them starve due to their imbecility, society be able to prevent those who are manifestly unfit from perpetuating their species. The principle supporting mandatory vaccination is strong enough to cover the fallopian tube section […]. Three generations of imbeciles is enough!”
Moreover, the label “weak-minded” attached to criminals, prostitutes, alcoholics, the poor, and Blacks reinforced theeugenic sterilization policies. Under the impetus of this ruling, about thirty American states enacted laws authorizing the forced sterilization of these categories of population. Between 1900 and 1970, more than60,000 peopleconsidered as “mentally weak” were forcibly sterilized.
The sperm bank of R. K. Graham reserved for Nobel Prize winners
Robert Klark Graham(1906-1997), the businessman who made his fortune thanks to the creation of unbreakable eyeglass lenses, was also known for his “genius sperm bank.” This ardent defender of eugenics argues in his workFuture of Man(1970) and thetheory of degenerationthat to stop the degradation of the human species, the reproduction of “less intelligent” individuals should be limited and that of the “more intelligent” should be favored.
In the early 1980s, Graham moved from theory to the creation of afree elitist sperm bankÂ: to theGerminal Choice Repositoryin California. His objective: to help some“intelligent” womenTo give birth to future little geniuses in order to “save humanity.” Only white donors meeting strict criteria were allowed to donate their gametes.
Originally, Graham was looking for donors only among Nobel Prize laureates. The co-inventor of the transistor,William Bradford Shockley(1910-1989), laureate of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1956 andsupporter of eugenics, was part of it, as well as two other anonymous laureates. However, the rarity of Nobel Prize donors and the low viability of their semen, due totheir age, forced Graham to relax his selection criteria. Nevertheless, he required an IQ of at least 130 points for the other donors. More than200 childrenwere born from this bank closed in 1999, two years after Graham’s death. Allhave not, however, become geniuses.
When Jeffrey Epstein planned to be the father of about twenty children of “super races”
Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile found dead in his cell in August 2019 before his trial for sexual crimes, was also a defender of eugenics, according to an investigation byNew York Timespublished the same year. Surely convinced of having genetically superior DNA, he planned to transform his ranch in New Mexico into a procreation center where about twenty women, selected based on academic and beauty criteria, would be inseminated with his own gametes. This project is reminiscent ofRepository Germinal Choiceof Graham or, on a larger scale, the programLebensborn – the factory of “Aryan” children (tall, blond with blue eyes) under the Nazi regime – insofar as Epstein fantasized about women “with blue eyes”, asign of intelligenceaccording to him.
Various media (Le Figaro,The Guardian,The Telegraph,Mother Jones…), after consultation ofEpstein filespublished by the American justice system on30 January 2026, confirmed Epstein’s obsession with eugenics, and reported his fascination with “designer babies”, thetranshumanismand the IQ.
It should be noted that Epstein had also financed genetic research through substantial donations to several scientific institutions, notably:
-
6.5 million dollars (5.5 million euros) toHarvardfor the creation of a “dynamic evolutionary” program in 2003;
-
20,000 dollars (17,000 euros) toWorldwide Transhumanist Association(renownedHumanity Plus) in 2011;
-
850,000 dollars (725,200 euros) to the laboratory ofMassachusetts of Technology(MIT) between 2002 and 2017.
IQ, Donald Trump’s rhetorical weapon
Donald Trump, for his part, has a habit of disparaging and questioning the IQ of his political opponents or anyone who disagrees with him. In September 2025, for example, he referred to his criticJasmine Crockett, Democratic representative from Texas in Congress, called someone “very low IQ.”
In June of the same year, following an economic dispute, he openly took it out onJerome Powell, the current Fed chairman — whom he himself appointed during his first term — calling him a “person of moderate mental ability,” “low IQ,” and “very stupid.”
Also to read:
Yes, calling someone ‘mentally disabled’ causes real harm
Faithful to his rhetoric of denigration used as a defensive posture, he called Kamala Harris’s former running mate,Tom Walz, of “total moron” (vulgarly “real idiot” in French) during his second presidential campaign and stated about hisformer Democratic rival :
“Kamala Harris has a low IQ and cannot compete with the leaders of other countries.”
His predecessors suffered the same fate. In 2020, he declared in a tweet aboutJoe BidenÀ :
“You’re going to have to get used to it, yet another individual with a low IQ!”
He also called into question the studies ofBarack Obamaat Columbia and Harvard universities.
Let us recall that if Trump systematically sets out to belittle those who resist him, it is also – and above all –to restore its imageand to value himself. During his dispute withPowellin June 2025, he stated:
“Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself?”
In 2018, he had also self-proclaimed himself“a very stable genius”despite the absence of any evidence to date. A statement not very surprising when we know that in 2015, he had threatened toto take legal actionthe universities where he had studied if they revealed his grades.
Finally, Trump’s obsession with IQ probably stems from his adherence to the eugenic theories of the last century: hisspeechare peppered with references to “good genes” (his own, those of his family and white Americans) and “bad genes” (those of illegal immigrants whom he sometimes calls“criminals”, sometimes of“monsters”and so many people who“poison the blood”of the country).
Also to read:
Trump’s words: the springs of an effective rhetoric
Perspectives: an obsession extending to sorting embryos according to their future IQ
Onestudyfrom 2023 reveals that 28% of Americans say they are in favor of genetically modifying their baby to maximize its chances of being admitted to the best universities later on. Conversely, 38% would consider selecting embryos based on their IQ as part of their parenting project.
Certain American start-ups, such asHeliospect GenomicsandNucleus Genomics, already claim to be able to sort embryos according to their potential IQ, even though it is aspeculationfor many scientists. They offer a wealthy clientele the possibility of ranking embryos conceived by fertilizationin vitroaccording to their potential IQ thanks to a genetic screening method. Future parents can then choose to implant the “best” embryo according to various criteria, including IQ, into the woman’s uterus.
This ideology of reproducing the “most intelligent” is supported across the Atlantic byElon Musk, certain movements like thePronantalist Foundationas well as by the Tech giants of theSilicon Valley.
By analyzing Americans’ obsession with IQ, we cannot dismiss the risk of a more modern, more eugenicssoftbut with equally serious consequences: the normalization of the idea that genetically “superior” beings exist and the eugenic abuses that this belief could still cause…
Allane Madanamoothoo does not work for, advise, hold shares in, receive funds from any organization that could benefit from this article, and has declared no other affiliation than his research institution.
–ref. How IQ became America’s obsession –https://theconversation.com/how-iq-became-americas-obsession-279879