Letters

In the last several years there has been an increasing chorus of voices trying to convince us that there was some good after all in the work of the Nazi scientists who participated in the concentration camp medical experiments. This new breed of apologist claims to have exhumed from among the bones, so to speak, of the holocaust victims some gems of scientific research which will benefit mankind. Alan Nixon's recent essay (The Scientist, November 14, page 9) is the latest contribution in that regard. It is particularly irrational and offensive in its attack on Mr. Lee Thomas and scientists of the EPA who have rightfully resisted attempts to grant these experiments scientific respect. What is evident is that Nixon has not taken the trouble to read the experiments and does not know the names or the credentials of those who conducted them. Neither does he know any of the circumstances surrounding the performance of the experiments. That, of course, entitles him to speak with such authority. It is astonishing to read of his "impression that many German scientists were rather reluctant party members going along with Nazi demands, to save their lives." I am not aware that such an alibi was ever offered as a defense by any of the Nazi physicians and scientists brought to trial for their medical crimes. It is the contrary which is true: those who participated in these Nazi crimes did so willingly - they either volunteered or simply obeyed when they were asked and did not question what they were supposed to do. Adolph Eichmann is the classic example of that mentality. The records show that the physicians and scientists involved often performed their work with great enthusiasm in order to curry favor and promotions. It is fair to characterize many of them on the basis of those same records as opportunistic, scheming, sycophantic followers if not adulators of Gestapo chief Heinrich Himmler - that well-known biological scientist to whom they often submitted experimental protocols and reports. So much for the "reluctant party members." The basic scientific question at hand, however, concerns the experiments themselves and the data they generated. Are they "good" in the scientific sense, representing the outcome of well-planned, well-executed work reported on with truth and honesty? While I cannot provide a direct evaluation of these questions because I have not studied the phosgene experiments, I believe, having read the details of many other concentration camp medical experiments (for example, those on freezing and high altitude), that they will fail on all criteria except perhaps execution. A true protocol of the phosgene experiments must divulge that the experiments were done on victims who were weak, in poor health, physically abused, to say nothing of them being non-Aryan, refusing to grant sexual favors, and generally "uncooperative." As for the credibility of the results, should we believe tables of numbers generated by murderers whose major goal was to contribute to the Nazi regime and profit personally in the act? Might the experimenters not be willing to lie just a little, or a lot, for that matter? As to the validation of the experimental data, the reason there is no proper data on poison gas toxicity to humans is quite obvious to must of us. The only way something might come about is to get a grant from the Iraqi government the next time they go to war. Would Nixon be interested in applying? Finally we have Nixon's emotional claim that lives may be saved by using the results of these experiments for therapy. Would it not be flagrant medical malpractice and irresponsibility to use such unsupported data? What, may I ask, would Nixon say if the data were so used and the patient died? We scientists are, after all, humans who strive to observe well-established moral and ethical constraints in our work, We do not honor or respect those who violate those constraints. We reject their work. And we certainly consider abhorrent any attempt to label concentration camp victims as being gassed for the good of humanity. In 1946-47, I witnessed and photographed the Nuremberg Medical Trials while I was in the U.S. Army. I also note that additional information concerning the overall nature of the Nazi medical experiments and the scientists who conducted the work can be found in Mitscherlich, A. and F. Mielke, Doctors of Infamy (Schuman, 1949). It deserves reprinting. May I also suggest that The Scientist publish as a public service the details of the experiments in question for all of us to examine first hand. EDMUND M. GLASER School of Medicine University of Maryland Baltimore, Md. 21201

Letters

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Edmund Glaser

Published In

January 1989

Related Research Resources

Why Do Some People Get Drunk Faster Than Others?

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Sex Differences in Neurological Research

New Frontiers in Vaccine Development

New Approaches for Decoding Cancer at the Single-Cell Level

Organoids as a Tool for Tissue Regeneration Research

Products

Product News

Artificial Inc. proof-of-concept data demonstrates platform capabilities with NVIDIA’s BioNeMo

Sapient Partners with Alamar Biosciences to Extend Targeted Proteomics Services Using NULISA™ Assays for Cytokines, Chemokines, and Inflammatory Mediators

Bio-Rad Extends Range of Vericheck ddPCR Empty-Full Capsid Kits to Optimize AAV Vector Characterization

Accelerating Mycoplasma Testing for Targeted Therapy Development