I don't know what the official term for it is, but because I do not believe the nature of abstract statistics is specifically bound (other than historically) with eugenics (IE, the founders of statistics were also eugenecists, but I don't think they embedded the principles of eugenics into statistics). Instead, the argument should be entirely about the abstract details of statistics. Other historical articles can bring up (and attempt to make the case for) the linkage between the two concepts.

Eugenics is like a strange attractor for scientists: over and over again, smart quantitative people who learn about genetics, selective breeding, and human phenotypes all end up converging on the idea of using selective breeding humans to "improve the phenotype" in their biased and preconceived notion of what "improve" and "phenotype" mean. It's not at all surprising that Galton (one of my personal heros for his statistical work; I made a Galton board) and Fisher (not one of my favorites) both explored these ideas alongside their scientific efforts.