What I mean to say is that the sociological view associated with eugenics precipitates from the study of cytogenetics.
Despite the concept and indeed the practice of eugenics preceding the discipline of cytogenetics, in its most embryonic form, by decades at the least? That is if we only go as far back as Galton and not to other historic 'breeding' programs.
Despite the fact that Eugenics is conceivable based on nothing more than the observations of selective breeding already well established and recognised? What was the consternation over miscegenation in the states in the mid-19th century over if not similar concerns to many racial-eugenecists?
Therefore, cytogenetics could be construed as the application of positive eugenics-- in fact, the whole point is to eliminate undesirable traits that lead to disease.
Well actually the whole point is to study and understand the molecular and genetic architecture of the cell and the transmission of genetic and other associated factors over generations. That one of the principal areas of study is genetic diseases, and in turn possible cures through practices such as gene therapy, does not mean that is the purpose and reason of cytogenetics.
That genetics/ genomics/ cytogenetics provide the sort of information which would be required for the application of practical eugenic programs does not mean that it is from eugenics that these disciplines developed.
I agree that eugenics is a valid field of science, albeit a controversial and not very well researched one, but it isn't the field of science that cytogenetics developed from, although they arose around the same time. There is clearly some overlap however between those who studied genetics and those who promoted eugenics, Charles Davenport who was the director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the 1890's was also the founder of the American Eugenics movement would be one example.
TTFN,
WK