1. Quoted in JoAnne Brown, ‘Purity and danger in color: notes on germ theory and the semantics of segregation, 1885–1915’, in Jean-Paul Gaudillière and Ilana Löwy (eds), Heredity and Infection: The History of Disease Transmission (London: Routledge, 2001), 101–31 (quote from 105). For another example, see Frederick L. Hoffman, Race Traits and Tendencies of the American Negro (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1896), 95.
2. William Bulloch and Paul Fildes, ‘Section XIV: haemophilia’, in Karl Pearson (ed.), Treasury of Human Inheritance, 1 (London: Dulau and Co., 1912), 169–354 (here 184).
3. Quoted from ‘The Modern Mother’. Detroit Journalvia New York Times (9 January 1901), 8, in James Barlament, ‘Healthy Fear: Bacteria and Culture in America at the Turn of the Twentieth Century’ (unpublished MA thesis: Athens, University of Georgia, 2005), 16.
4. Rice, ibid., 298–300; Mary Spongberg, Feminizing Venereal Diseases (New York: New York University Press, 1997); Peter Baldwin, Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830–1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 543; Roger Davidson and Lesley A. Hall (eds), Sex, Sin and Suffering: Venereal Diseases and European Society since 1870 (London and New York, NY: Routledge, 2001).
5. Müller-Wille and Rheinberger, op. cit. (note 8), 96–7. These authors’ comments rely primarily on two studies by Mendelsohn and Christophe Bonneuil, who point at intriguing and usually overlooked influences that the work of Koch and Pasteur had on the rise of genetics; these relate mainly to the preoccupation with purification, standardisation of crops, and the production of pure cultures. See Christophe Bonneuil, ‘Pure lines as industrial simulacra: a cultural history of genetics from Darwin to Johannsen’, in Müller-Wille and Brandt, op. cit. (note 17), 213–42; J. Andrew Mendelsohn, ‘Message in a bottle: vaccines and the nature of heredity after 1880’, in ibid., 243–64.