Thanks for that Keith, the clarification is appreciated. Perhaps I could just add something though; from my searches, I get the distinct impression that the Galton institute has formed a particular 'world view' in terms of what is beneficial to the human species and what is not. This judgement is indeed based on some rudimentary thinking about inherited diseases (the role of spontaneous mutation is never considered), but also has roots in the now completely discredited work on intelligence by Eysenck and others. Add to that the avowed intent to pursue a cause of curtailing population growth among those classes of people, nations or races it deems to be less beneficial, there seems to be a commonality of ends (though not of means) with earlier practitioners of eugenics.
I find this disturbing on a number of levels; the main issue for me is the attempt by those who are successful in the genetic lottery to stack the odds against those who are less so. I'm disturbed on a personal level too. I'm a senior academic these days, but I'm the first male member of my entire family who didn't earn his living from working with his hands. My family also carries a gene for hereditary blindness. Had the Galton institute been as influential in the 1950s as they would no doubt like to be, my parents would have been discouraged (via 'genetic counselling') from having children, and I might not be here. Put another way, judgement would have been passed that my life, and that of my younger siblings (a history teacher, a doctor and a professional musician)would not have been worthwhile.
The problem with Coleman and so many other scientists of his ilk is that they have tremendous intellectual gifts in their field, but a narrowness of focus that prevents them fully considering either the wide moral compass of their work or the degree of uncertainty that the real world brings to the equation. I find Coleman's work interesting on that narrow level in the same way that the work of Thomas Malthus is interesting, but the moral critique of Coleman's ideas is far more convincing than the ideas themselves.
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply, I hope I've done it justice.
Tim