Eugenics was hardly pseudoscience, except the politicized aspects.
Aspects of it are actually pretty damned real, but... Hitler kind of put a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
As a species, we must either commit to shades of eugenics or genetic manipulation/therapy. Not saying it's pretty or a discussion that's fit for a dinner party... certain facts of life are rather appalling.
As for Michael Crichton - lol. He was an intelligent man, and had quite a bit of scientific schooling. But he never had a lick of advanced schooling in Climatology or related atmospheric sciences.
He was well versed and stayed current as best as possible, and some of his arguments are definitely important.
But come on - I read State of Fear too (twice, actually). The bias and agenda in that book is ridiculous and laughable.
And actually, all the while arguing against "global warming", he certainly showcased the actual trends of global climate change. Fact is, some areas most certainly will get colder. There's no way to slice it - even if the a average temp of the world rises, some regions must grow colder as climate patterns shift.
Politicized science - yes, it's a dangerous animal and an affront to science itself. Some things are rather difficult to change, however, because science has always been debated at the national leadership level. It's either political leaders or religious leaders - one side of the coin is always aghast at what science brings up at some point. When you produce results that serve to go against "the current way of things", people get angry.