Following my comments on Nazi euthanasia in another thread, I'd be interested to find out what people think of the way that post-war scientific developments were affected by what the Nazi's did. What springs straight to mind is of course rocket technology and atomic research. But what about other areas, especially medical. There's euthanasia, but there have been many recent controversies about the use of medical "research" carried out in the KZs, and it's applications today e.g. the Nazis were some of the first to link smoking with cancer, or the use of data by the Allies on airmen survival at high altitudes and freezing water which was gathered by using KZ inmates in the most horrendous experiments. The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial(s) were recently brought up in the reporting of the recent drugs-testing case. Any comments?
Though many of the results from Nazi 'science' must obviously have to be treated with some suspicion due to the rather arbitrary nature of much of it I was recently annoyed at an outraged chap on the radio who railed against the 'disgusting' use of Nazi figures as a small part of a recent report on twins. Seems to me that if even a tiny fraction of the Nazi's work can be turned towards a positive purpose then that can only be a good thing. If something was created by an evil organisation then that does not automatically render it evil. The "horrendous experiments" certainly raise an ethical dillemna but if the data (which nobody else was deranged enough to collect) can be used for good then that, at least in my opinion, stands as some sort of memorial to the people who were murdered. Cheers, Adam.
Though many of the results from Nazi 'science' must obviously have to be treated with some suspicion due to the rather arbitrary nature of much of it I was recently annoyed at an outraged chap on the radio who railed against the 'disgusting' use of Nazi figures as a small part of a recent report on twins. Seems to me that if even a tiny fraction of the Nazi's work can be turned towards a positive purpose then that can only be a good thing. If something was created by an evil organisation then that does not automatically render it evil. The "horrendous experiments" certainly raise an ethical dillemna but if the data (which nobody else was deranged enough to collect) can be used for good then that, at least in my opinion, stands as some sort of memorial to the people who were murdered. Cheers, Adam. Well said Von Poop. There's absolutely no sense in throwing away what may be valueable information, it's not going to undo the atrocities.
Thanks, Von Poop and Cancerkitty, for your responses. Following on from the Doctor's Trial, the following code was adopted and is still quoted by Medical Ethics commitees around the world (my apologies for the long quote which I "borrowed" from wikipedia). Of course, human society has developed since the war, and we look back aghast at what some people did and believed. But it's interesting how some Nazi science and scientist were welcomed with open arms and others were supposedly shunned. "The Nuremberg Code is a set of principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. Specifically, they were in response to the inhumane Nazi human experimentation carried out during the war by individuals such as Dr. Josef Mengele. In August 1947, the judges delivered their verdict in the "Doctors' Trial" against Karl Brandt and several others. They also delivered their opinion on medical experimentation on human beings. Several of the accused had argued that their experiments differed little from pre-war ones and that there was no law that differentiated between legal and illegal experiments. In April of the same year, Dr. Leo Alexander had submitted to the Counsel for War Crimes six points defining legitimate medical research. The trial verdict adopted these points and added an extra four. The ten points constituted the "Nuremberg Code". Although the legal force of the document was not established and it was not incorporated directly into either the American or German law, the Nuremberg Code and the related Declaration of Helsinki are the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Volume 46[1], which are the regulations issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services governing federally funded research in the United States. In addition, the Nuremberg code has also been incorporated into the law of individual states such as California, and other countries. The Nuremberg code includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. The ten points are: The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject."
Agree with VP and the others on this. This knowledge was gleaned at the misfortune of others. The grounds for obtaining it were unethical,but in some small way if there has been an advance in science from this then use it. At least the person's sacrifice benefited mankind and was not wasted. A shred of good out of bad. They suffered the horrors, others won't have to. The freezing water experiment , perhaps has been picked up by naval departments as data in exposure for downed pilots. Sad to say these experiments to me come across as sadism and not medical advancement. Taking living developed foetuses out of a woman through the abdomen without anaesthetic, amputations of healthy limbs without anaesthetic. One can only hope that medical science drew some useful knowledge from the pile. They owe it to those who were unwilling guinea pigs.
What about the old adage, "nothing good can come out of evil"? It is a matter of personal opinion whether the "discoveries" and "scientific advances" made by the Nazis have ultimately benfitted humankind in some way. If they truly have, then that would at least be a fitting tribute to those who were murdered or maimed. But one has only to look at a random selection of the problems facing the world today to see that that may not be the case: the development of swept wing jet technology, developed by the Nazis and applied by the Allies, for instance led to airline travel as we know it today. The growth in airline travel has, in turn, in part fuelled the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere because of jet engine emissions; and the availibility of inexpensive travel for all to all corners of the globe has resulted in the non containment of epidemics and turned them into pandemics - AIDS being but one example. Genetic experimentation, as pioneered by the Nazis, has led to the kinds of medical procedures many view as "freakish" - ie the grafting of new limbs onto bodes, or partial face transplants. At best, these procedures raise all sorts of ethical questions. I could go on, but I am always reminded of another old adage which goes something like, "knowledge, applied without wisdom, is dangerous". The trouble with us humans is that, as a race, we have always had a thirst for knowledge (which is healthy), but little for the acquistion of spiritual wisdom (which is not!).
Even apart from the ethical issues, I read somewhere that most Nazi medical experiments on prisoners were of dubious scientific value as they weren't properly conducted. The subjects were in poor health & were fed a poor diet, laboratories & instruments weren't kept scrupulously clean & placebo testing often wasn't carried out. Many of the 'experiments' were just sadism, with little or no real scientific value.
Even apart from the ethical issues, I read somewhere that most Nazi medical experiments on prisoners were of dubious scientific value as they weren't properly conducted. The subjects were in poor health & were fed a poor diet, laboratories & instruments weren't kept scrupulously clean & placebo testing often wasn't carried out. Many of the 'experiments' were just sadism, with little or no real scientific value. Yes, I don't doubt it. The Nazis were incredibly sadistic. Myskin crawls when I think about them.
