“At best a dubious distinction,” a “step which may lead to unassailable results” and “no respectable scientist will advance any dogmatic opinion on the question as yet” were some of the comments made by distinguished scientists today to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency in reply to Dr. O. E. Manoiloff, eminent Russian biologist, who has recently concluded a series of chemical experiments on Jewish and Gentile blood and claims to have discovered that in the presence of certain chemicals the blood of the Jew has a distinct reaction from the blood of the Gentile.
The report of Dr. Manoiloff’s findings published in the Daily Science News (Washington) has created considerable of a stir in scientific circles. The report, in part follows together with the comments on the findings by Dr. Ruth Benedict, acting head of the department of anthropology of Columbia University, Dr. Adolph Barnard, director of the department of chemical research at the Lenox Hill Hospital, and Dr. Abraham Goldfarb, of the biology department of C. C. N. Y. Only the latter is a Jew.
Dr. Manoiloff’s findings as reported in part by the Daily Science News follow:
“Manoiloff worked on Jewish and Gentile Russians.
“He added to a blood clot a goodly amount of salt solution and a few drops of a dyestuff, called cresyl-violet. In Jewish blood the color of the cresyl-violet disappeared entirely, or almost so, and a bluish or greenish tinge alone remained, while in the Gentile Russian blood the cresyl-violet remained partly insoluble, and appeared blue-red.
JEWISH BLOOD OXIDIZED DYE
“The Jewish blood oxidized the dye more readily than the Russian. Dr. Manoiloff requested several investigators to send him samples of Jewish and Russian blood, marked only with numbers, the identity of the samples being known only to the sender.
“He tested 202 samples and gave the correct answer in 187 cases, that is 91.7 per cent. Madame Poliakowa, working in the State Institute of the Public Health Commissariat at Leningrad, applied Manoiloff’s race-test to the determination of paternity. In cases of pure marriages, where father and mother belonged to the same nationality the child’s blood reaction corresponded to that of the parents. In mixed marriages the color of the child’s blood resembled either the father’s or the mother’s.
“Mixed marriages between Russians on the one hand, and Germans, Poles, and Finns on the other, made the child’s blood look Russian, whereas, a match between a Russian and a Jew resulted in Jewish-blooded babies.”
ESTABLISH DUBIOUS DISTINCTION
Dr. Benedict, in commenting on this report, declared: “The experimentations of Dr. Manoiloff, while establishing at best a dubious distinction between Russian Jews and Gentiles, does not necessarily establish the same distinction between American Jews and Gentiles or a similar differentiation for other countries. While we accept the general fact as proposed by the experiment, it is as yet possessed of no biological significance. The blood stream of the human individual is acted upon by innumerable and untraceable influences. Those reactions which the Russian biologist discovered may be purely local. It may be the result of differences in diet between Jew and Gentile, or the varying degree of susceptibility to disease.
“These considerations are not only important, but they may be the very factors to which Dr. Manoiloff owes his conclusions. Before we accept his results as bearing any racial significance, it will first be necessary to conduct similar experiments all over the world in order to account for the differences of the locality and environment.”
Dr. Barnard had the following to say: “The experiments of Dr. Manoiloff is a step which may lead to certain unassailable results. Oxidation upon which his experiments are based is the coming field for experimentation on blood distinctions. Whether or not the work done in Russia leads to an indisputable method of determining the Jew from the Gentile, it is a little too early to learn. Insufficient corroborative experiment has been carried on to date. More independent research is needed, and a great many more numerical determinations must first be had.
“The Russian biologist worked with about 200 samples. If he had worked with two hundred thousand and had obtained a 91 per cent result, as he did with the smaller number, his results would have produced scientific history. Supposing he worked on an additional two hundred samples, and fifty per cent of the results did not verify his first conclusions; what importance would his work have had then?
FAILED TO INCLUDE VARYING STRAINS
“Another criticism of Dr. Manoiloff’s work is his failure to include more varying strains. Not having tested the blood of the Turk, Negro or Chinese, how does he know what their blood serums will tell? It might react identically with the serum of the Jew. In that case Jewish blood would not differ from Gentile blood. In the main however this work has fine possibilities and may with further experiment lead to amazing discoveries. At the present I cannot accept the racial importance ascribed to this work, because insufficient work in the field has been done.”
Dr. Goldfarb, stating that no respectable scientist will advance any dogmatic opinion on the question as yet and that he would like to be more familiar with the original experiment, declared: “Off hand I would say that biogenetically speaking, the blood of the Jew is in no way different from the blood of the other races. If there is a difference of chemical content in the blood, it is due to environment, and not all Jews live in the same environment, even when members of the same society. Of course any scientific experiment is worth consideration. The work of a great scientist may be full of error, and conversely, the work of a charlatan full of surprising significance. All scientific premises must be carefully and deliberately measured. As far as the work of Dr. Manoiloff is concerned, I personally attach no validity or racial or scientific significance to it.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
