eugenics was dismissed because of it's absurdity. trying to reduce the absolute complexity & infinite # of variables of human behavior to individual "genes" & asserting that 3/4 of poles & russians are genetically feeble minded tended to not hold up under scrutiny. As well, using genetic indicators for socio-economic situations such as poverty/lack of eduction, (which resulted in sterilization laws/marriage laws, etc.,) eventually was seen for what it is - foolish...it was accepted by western culture because guess who had the best "genes" according to eugenics...? As well, it supported the "race" ideas prominent at the time...morphological characteristics are not "racial" indicators & not found in tandem among ethnic groups
Intelligence (which is impossible to define) is influenced by socio-ecomonic/cultural/physical enviornment & genetics - placing more emphasis on one over the other has no foundation. Even with identical twins the differentiation in "IQ" varies 15-20% from those reared together as those apart - and that's those reared apart in similar socio economic situations. That % increases in correlation to significant differences in culture/class etc.,
eugenics is moot - galton was a nutjob...it's not taboo anymore than santa clause...but even the hippies in the behavioral sciences don't study santa clause usually...cept for anthropologists & they'd study the sexual behavior of tanssexual nuns into beastiality if they could get a grant for it - to keep from actually getting a job.
I'm so glad I chose philosophy of the behavioral sciences.
best of luck -
aeon