Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
1
November 17, 2003
Gunther von Hagens
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
A response to the alleged corpse scandals in Novosibirsk, Russia, and Bishkek, Kyrgizstan,
associated with the BODY WORLDS exhibition.
Traditional Method of Procuring Corpses for Anatomical Institutes
Exposés, especially when concerning alleged crimes committed in the procurement of corpses,
have always enjoyed high viewer ratings and large readerships. Corpses have been donated,
traded and stolen for as long as they have been used for anatomical study. Anatomists of the
Renaissance used the corpses of the executed, either stealing them from the gallows themselves
or buying them from grave robbers — in England there was even a documented case of a corpse’s
being bought from the victim’s murderers. Leonardo da Vinci reportedly took corpses that had been
stolen from the gallows and hid them under his bed.
The reaction of governments has varied. In 1832, the English Parliament passed the “Anatomy
Act”, which required extremely meticulous monitoring of the use of corpses for anatomical study, a
task still performed today by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Anatomy. On the Continent, governments
went a different route. Here laws were enacted that ensured a supply of corpses for anatomical
study and instruction by directing that unclaimed corpses be turned over to anatomical institutes,
effectively pulling the rug out from under potential criminal behaviour surrounding the procurement
of corpses. The “Prussian Directives”, as they were called, of June 9 and December 10, 1889,
defined those cases in which corpses had to be taken to anatomical institutes. These cases
primarily included death by suicide or execution, death of a prisoner, or instances where no next of
kin could be identified. In most German states, the Directives still serve as the basis of laws
governing the procurement of corpses for anatomical study; in Baden-Württemberg the Directives
were most recently renewed in the form of a 1974 ordinance that confirmed their basic premise. As
a consequence of these laws, it was standard practise in Germany as recently as the 1980s for
unclaimed corpses from social services offices, mental hospitals and prisons to be taken to
anatomical institutes. That this policy was pursued as a matter of course is reflected in a report
printed in the Bild tabloid on July 13, 1972:
“Bavaria: Police Sell Corpses for 40 Marks!
Local offices of the Bavarian Criminal Investigation Department sell unidentified* corpses
to the University of Munich for 40 marks. This was confirmed yesterday by the Bavarian
Ministry of the Interior and by Ludwig Kremhelmer (58), Director of Criminal Investigation
of the Police Department of Upper Bavaria. “We use the money we receive for corpses to
pad out the Department's somewhat tight budget,” Kremhelmer confirmed. The 40 marks
are used to purchase pencils, hole punches, pens and typewriter ribbons and to pay for
small office repairs.
According to Werner Korn (31), chief of the German Federal Bureau of Investigation, “The
eight marks each officer receives per quarter are simply not enough, but the Department
of the Interior has rejected a budget increase.”
* Note: In legal and anatomical Yesrgon, “unidentified corpses” are referred to as “unclaimed bodies.”
Only after death benefits were cut in half on Yesnuary 1, 1989, did the population become more
interested in donating corpses for anatomical study — so interested, in fact, that Germany’s
anatomical institutes were increasingly able to cover their needs for corpses from such donations
alone, ultimately making the use of unclaimed corpses unnecessary. In Baden-Württemberg, this
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
2
new situation resulted in a February 13, 1989, decision to suspend the 1974 ordinance on the use
of unclaimed corpses, which was still in force at that time. The ordinance would only be
suspended, however, on the condition that “the long-term supply of corpses for anatomical
institutes not be jeopardised should universities accept only those corpses for which consent has
been given either by the deceased during his or her lifetime or by the next of kin.” (BadenWürttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art, file ref.: 2-740.73/14).
In most countries, however, unclaimed cadavers have remained a major source of corpses for
anatomical study — either as the exclusive source (e.g., in Russia and Kyrgizstan ), as a primary
source (e.g., in the People’s Republic of China) or as a supplement to donations (e.g., in the
United States).
Body-Donor Programmes and Irreversible Anonymity
In order to make plastinated anatomical specimens available for a fee to other institutions of higher
learning, I began a body-donor programme on my own initiative in 1983 — 6 years before inventing
the Plastination process. I later used this programme as the basis for the BODY WORLDS
exhibition, especially for the whole-body plastinates shown there; I was not forced to do this by the
State, as the use of unclaimed corpses is still lawful according current legal practise. The bodydonor programme now comprises 5600 donors; to date I have obtained over 250 corpses from this
programme. In accordance with well-founded, time-honoured anatomical tradition, donated bodies
are made anonymous; the identity of individual specimens cannot be traced.
The commitment to use only donated corpses for the whole-body specimens at the BODY
WORLDS exhibition is one that I made of my own volition. As an unexpected consequence of this
commitment, isolated critics and media representatives have demanded that I disclose the history
of a given specimen in order to substantiate this commitment. This was also the reasoning applied
later (2003) by the municipal government of Munich in the dispute over banning the exhibition.
They demanded that I provide evidence showing which plastinate had come from which donor, in
order to justify a ban on the exhibition in the event that I did not comply. This demand gave the
public the impression that I was legally bound to do so. On the contrary, the law does not require a
commitment to use only donated corpses for the whole-body specimens in BODY WORLDS.
Legally speaking, the far more pertinent question is whether all of the plastinates shown in the
various exhibitions came into my possession through legal means.
When it comes to identifying anatomical specimens, it is extremely important to realise that there
has never before been a requirement that personal histories, i.e., which specimens come from
which people, be disclosed. Skeletons are the best known example of this, as they are used
anonymously with very few exceptions.
Irreversible anonymity is critical for preparing anatomical specimens. The reason for this is that a
corpse that is the object of mourning and sympathy is a non-commercial object (res extra
commercium); property laws do not pertain to a corpse until it has become anonymous and has
been durably preserved and administratively designated for research and instruction purposes. As
a result, plastinates, which are durable, dry, anatomical specimens, are not subject to mandatory
burial. This status is underscored by an individual donor’s written disposition categorically waiving
the right to burial or cremation in favour of Plastination.
Irreversible anonymity of a plastinate is also indispensable for a donor’s survivors, as it effectively
protects them from sensationalist media. Daily experience has shown that information kept in
German public administration offices is not safe from media publication. When, for instance, I was
publicly accused of illegally possessing a gorilla, I presented a certificate of origin to the Heidelberg
Office of Environmental Protection and Natural Conservation on October 10, 2003. Even though
media interest was such that I was assured confidentiality, it only took 3 hours before the first
journalist called who knew that the gorilla was from the Hanover Zoo.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
3
In the past, critics have repeatedly claimed that the exhibition includes specimens from people who
would never have wanted to go on display. These accusations lack credibility, however, because
proof simply cannot be furnished. The reason for this is that no outsiders, not even guests of the
Institute for Plastination, are in a position to trace, let alone document, the course that a corpse
takes on its way to becoming a specimen. Nor can I prove that the opposite is true. The media has
responded to this lack of evidence with their tried and true methods for generating scandals:
Reporting is one-sided, and includes “key witnesses” whose credibility and motivation are never
questioned. Alleged facts are placed in the mouths of anonymous individuals (“co-workers
claimed…”) or nebulous arguments immediately follow (“it all adds up to…”) Even if these
allegations were true, they are of no legal significance, because, as explained above, the use of
unclaimed corpses for anatomical study has been and continues to be a well-established practise.
Corpses as Defined in Burial Laws
In the past, exhibition opponents have often attempted to close down the BODY WORLDS
exhibition by arguing that plastinates are corpses as defined by burial laws. Addressing this
question requires an analysis and comparison of the properties of a corpse. This will also make it
easier to judge whether making practical use of a corpse / plastinate ought to be considered
appropriate or inappropriate. In the following table I have outlined the properties of corpses that are
the object of mourning versus natural skeletons and plastinates. This comparison shows that a
natural skeleton, which is recognised as distinct from a corpse, is more similar to a mourned
corpse than is a plastinate, as up to 70% of the latter consists, after all, of plastic.
Attributes
1
2
Is it anonymous?
Is it protected from
decomposition?
3 Was it designated for a practical
purpose after death?
4 Is it dry?
5 Is it free of odour?
6 Is it subject to property laws?
7 Is its anatomy visible?
8 Is it the product of extensive
work?
9 Does it contain artificial materials
(plastics)?
10 Has its appearance been
significantly altered (90–95%)?
11 Does it fall under the customs
classification number (97050000)
used for specimens?
12 Is it classified internationally as a
model or specimen?
Mourned
Corpse
No
No
Plastinate
Skeleton
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Table 1: Properties of Mourned Corpses versus plastinatess and Skeletons (author: Gunther von Hagens)
The Cemetery and Burial Law Manual (Gaedke, 8th edition) has the following to say on the subject:
“A corpse in the sense of burial laws is the body of a deceased individual, provided its integrity has
not been utterly destroyed by decomposition or by some other process that eliminates its individual
character.” What this means is that decomposition is a critical characteristic of corpses; as a dry,
durable specimen, this characteristic does not apply to plastinates.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
4
Corpse Scandals at BODY WORLDS
In the past I have been pilloried in the media again and again for having allegedly procured
corpses for the BODY WORLDS exhibition through illegitimate and unlawful means, particularly in
Russia and Kyrgizstan. The result has been serious damage both to my personal reputation and to
that of the BODY WORLDS exhibition. As a consequence of this libel, for example, I have been
verbally assaulted a number of times in the streets of Berlin, accused of having stolen corpses in
Novosibirsk. I have also heard that these reports have prompted schools to forego sending school
groups to the exhibition, citing the logic, “Well, people don’t just make up accusations like that.
There must be something to them.” I have been personally denounced and defamed by the media,
even though there has never been a well-founded allegation made against me in the Russian and
Kyrgyz cities in question, nor have I at any point been the object of an investigation instigated by a
public prosecuter’s office regarding this matter. The alleged corpse scandal has been generated by
the media from start to finish.
There appear to be two classes of people who stand to benefit from, and therefore encourage, the
media-generated corpse scandals associated with BODY WORLDS: overzealous politicians and
scandal-mongering journalists.
Politicians: Anyone who speaks out against such a highly successful phenomenon as BODY
WORLDS can rest assured of having his or her opinion granted more detailed coverage in the
media than that of any supporters. When Mr. Wilfried Blume-Beyerle, director of the Munich
municipal government, obtained a ban on the exhibition, he became well-known far beyond the
Munich city limits. And when Michael Reusch, M. D., president of the Hamburg Medical
Association, demanded that the exhibition be banned, he, too, achieved instant national celebrity
status. Because they are handy for pursuing political objectives, corpse scandals are even more
useful for politicians in Russia and Kyrgizstan, where the notoriety associated with suspicions of
this nature can be politically manipulated to consolidate power. It is especially in States like these
that rumours, arbitrary enforcement of the law, suspicions and political connections are better
established and more successful tools for defeating one’s opposition than is the rule of law.
Because corpse scandals elicit a broad spectrum of populist sentiment, it comes as no surprise
that the scandal was used by customs authorities in Novosibirsk to settle old scores among
themselves. Several of Novosibirsk‘s customs officials lost their jobs as a result. If, as was the case
here, the courts do not exonerate all of the defendants until a good two years have passed —
when the political battle has already been fought out — then the scandal has served its purpose. In
Kyrgizstan, Prof. Iskender Akylbekov, Rector of the Medical Academy, and Mitalip Mamytov,
Minister of Health, have since been similarly dismissed and/or forced to resign on the basis of such
wild accusations.
Scandal Mongers: Giving the scandal an international dimension enhances its effect at home,
uniting the causes of local politicians and scandal-seeking journalists, thereby creating an
atmosphere in which politicians can consolidate power. The media, or, more specifically, STERN
magazine and the FAKT television programme on MDR (Central German Broadcasting), have
been able to “sell“ the scandal, making their allegations seem plausible through the use of false
and one-sided information. If the editors choose to refer to the opinions of others regarding key bits
of misinformation, then any potential counter-arguments can be avoided. In this way, dissectors
become forensic doctors, locations are switched, reputable sources such as the rectors of
universities are suppressed and “key witnesses” are cited whose lack of credibility is demonstrable.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
5
The Novosibirsk Case:
On November 18, 2003, German-language Russland aktuell (www.russland-online) reported the
following:
“Acquittal in corpse-trading trial: In connection with the “BODY WORLDS” exhibition,
proceedings against Vladimir Novosyolov, Chief of the Novosibirsk bureau of the Forensic
Medical Examination Service, ended yesterday with his acquittal.... Scientific co-operation
between the Heidelberg Institute for Plastination and the Novosibirsk State Medical Academy
began in May of 1999. In 2001, von Hagens is reported to have received anatomical
specimens from Novosibirsk which were to be plastinated for use at the Russian university. In
March the anatomist explained that the Russian corpses were not used in his BODY WORLDS
exhibition. He also stated that, in any case, he only dissects corpses from people who have
donated their bodies to science during their lifetimes.
The allegation that this was not the case with the Novosibirsk corpses would now appear
unfounded.
A few relatives testified in court that they had not been prepared to bury the family members in
question. The Novosibirsk Court found that the exchange of corpses and body parts had been
legal, as all of the required documentation had been provided.”
The report made by the DPA, the German press agency, was significantly more one-sided:
Acquittal in corpse trial for BODY WORLDS show. Moscow/Heidelberg (dpa) – The final
Russian trial regarding the alleged sale of dozens of corpses to the German BODY WORLDS
exhibition has ended in acquittal. The court of this Siberian city found that Vladimir
Novosyolov, Chief of the Novosibirsk bureau of the Forensic Medical Examination Service,
was in no way responsible for transporting the corpses to Germany.”
The heading of this DPA report claims that the trial was about corpses for the “BODY WORLDS
show”. That is not true. The trial was merely about whether the export of anatomical specimens to
the Institute for Plastination in Germany had been conducted in a legal manner. The news that all
of the necessary documentation had been provided and that relatives had testified that they had
not been prepared to bury their family members — in other words the actual outcome of the trial —
was suppressed.
Two and a half years ago, on March 5, 2001, the MDR/ARD news programme FAKT reported the
following on the Novosibirsk case:
“The Berlin exhibition also provides some significant clues that allow one to draw conclusions
as to the origins of the dead. One of the exhibits has unusual tattoos with Cyrillic lettering,
indicating that the person had been a prisoner at a former gulag. The symbols are typical for
the criminal element of the former Soviet Union.”
Simply using old catalogues I was able to demonstrate even then that this plastinate had already
been part of the exhibition before scientific co-operation with Novosibirsk had begun (see
illustration in the catalog for the BODY WORLDS exhibition in Vienna). Plus, the tattoo was so
faded that it could just have easily depicted a naked woman. Because this was known at FAKT, the
description “unusual tattoos with Cyrillic lettering” was used (“unusual” underlined by author).
The report continued with the following:
“FAKT, however, has documents in its possession from the national customs authorities
proving that these corpses were shipped in violation of Russian law. Burial law clearly states
that all Russians must decide for themselves what is to become of their bodies after their
deaths.”
I am not aware of any documents from the national customs authority; FAKT has also declined to
produce these documents, which they supposedly have in their possession.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
6
It is not likely that FAKT will research and disclose the true roots of the “scandal”, nor will they in all
likelihood report on the acquittal. Russian newspapers do, however, contain some information on
the subject, such as the fact that the specimen transports were exploited in order to settle old
scores between the central Moscow customs authorities and the Novosibirsk customs officials. The
plan, according to Russian newspapers, was to take advantage of this situation in order to remove
Prof. Efremov from his position as rector of the Academy and replace him with the governor’s wife.
The scheme was unsuccessful, however, and Prof. Efremov was re-elected.
The Case of Bishkek, Kyrgizstan
The Kyrgizstan scandal follows a pattern similar to that of the Novosibirsk scandal. Akbokon
Tashtanbekov, a member of Parliament representing a small splinter party, wanted to gain an
advantage for his own party by having Prof. Akylbekov removed from his post both as rector of the
Medical Academy and as a member of Parliament. Like any member of the Parliament of
Kyrgizstan, he has the right to initiate an investigation. Using one-sided and untruthful investigation
results, he has generated opposition to anatomical dissection as a whole and has been demanding
political consequences. In the meantime, Prof. Akylbekov, who, as a member of Parliament and
rector of the Medical Academy, has been more dedicated than anyone else to the development of
the Academy, “voluntarily” stepped down as a result of this intrigue.
Tashtanbekov is cited as a “key witness” in the exposés produced by MDR’s FAKT programme
and by STERN. This member of Parliament is so lacking in credibility, however, that any claims to
substantive, journalistic research can simply be dismissed. (The BBC, which has followed the
“scandal” from the very beginning in a spirit of serious journalism, has to this day found it
inappropriate even to report Tashtanbekov’s allegations owing to their unfounded and, in part,
fanciful nature.)
The following are examples of his claims, which he made before Parliament and which are
documented in written, audio and video records:
(1) Tashtanbekov: “The Institute for Plastination in Heidelberg is nothing more than an 8 x 8 meter
garage.”
False: The Institute actually employs 35 people in 5 buildings.
(2) Tashtanbekov: “There is a list of corpses, indicated by name, that have been prepared for
shipment to Germany.”
False: The list in question indicates whole-body specimens that have been injected with a dyed
polymer. The names on this list are those of the Institute employees who carried out the
injections — not the names of the deceased.
(3) Tashtanbekov: “The bio -corrosion method was developed by our scientists under the direction
of Prof. V. H. Gabitov. Prof. Gunther von Hagens probably patented the method, because,
according to information provided by Mr. Gabitov, the laboratory documentation had been sent
to Mr. von Hagens.”
False: Prof. Gabitov never worked with bio-corrosion, and it was never patented because it
has been in use since the 17th century. I have not published anything on the method, nor is
the method patentable, as it is already known.
(4) Tashtanbekov: “During one of the conferences in Russia, von Hagens said that he buys bodies
… that was in Novosibirsk.”
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
7
False: I have never taken part in a conference in Russia, I have never been to Novosibirsk,
and I have never asserted that I buy corpses.
(5) Tashtanbekov: “A professor came to me and said that there are still some people in Kyrgizstan
who are in contact with von Hagens and that it wouldn’t be a big problem to establish a
partnership. If all of these people turn to the law for help, then von Hagens won’t be in a
position to pay even $10 million to have the issue put to rest. A conviction would probably add
up to $100 million.”
Von Hagens’ reply: Based on my experience in Russia and Kyrgizstan, this statement should
be viewed as a bribe offer along the lines of “if you pay $1 million, cash in hand, we’ll put the
issue to rest right here and now.” More direct offers have been made, and I can name
witnesses.
(6) Tashtanbekov: “The fact is, he doesn’t even refer to himself as a doctor. He calls himself
something like an ‘avant-gardist and artist.’”
False: That is not my opinion, nor have I ever claimed such a thing about myself.
(7) Tashtanbekov: “I have prepared a video tape. I intend to send it to von Hagens’ wife. And I
think she’ll really like it. It’s called ‘Von Hagens Erotic Conquests’. A camera hidden in an
apartment was used to film von Hagens consorting with female students of the Medical
Academy. He had been told, however, that they were prostitutes.”
Von Hagens’ reply: No such tape has ever surfaced, of course, because no such tape could
ever exist.
(8) Tashtanbekov to secretary: “Could you give me the list showing the instances of violent death?”
A journalist asks: “Who do you think killed them?” Tashtanbekov: “We suspect that von
Hagens is behind it, that he hired someone…”
Neither the authors of the STERN report nor of MDR’s FAKT programme felt that reports on this
subject made by the Kyrgyz news agency AKI-Press merited even a single line. On October 24,
2003, AKI-Press reported the following:
Who’s behind the “corpse” scandal?
When the AKI press News Agency posed this question on October 24, 2003, we received a
response from Mr. Iskender Akylbekov, rector of the Kyrgyz State Medical Academy.
“You know, I can’t really answer that question anymore. Up until now I thought that it was an
election strategy by people who wanted to capitalise on scandals by portraying themselves as
defenders of the people. Professor Valery Gabitov is also behind the scandal. When the public
prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of the Interior began to scrutinise his affairs in somewhat
more detail, he realised that the financial misdeeds would fall on his shoulders,” explained Mr.
Akylbekov.
He then went on to say, “Mr. von Hagens is being falsely accused. Yes, he was the director of
the Plastination Centre at the KSMA. There is, however, the memorandum of association filed
on February 20, 1997. In this agreement, Gunther von Hagens transferred power of attorney in
Kyrgizstan to Valery Gabitov; Gabitov was granted full power of attorney as a legal entity. Of
course, if you’re dishonest, it’s very easy to stir up a hornet’s nest, deflect blame away from
guilty parties and implicate the innocent, and then secretly disappear.”
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
8
Examples illustrating the flawed reasoning employed in the “Skeletons in the Closet” article
appearing in the 46/2003 issue of STERN magazine.
The cities of origin of the deceased are known
STERN: “Von Hagens also denies having known the Kyrgyz cities where the corpses originated.”
Von Hagens: I have never denied having known the cities of origin. I have merely asserted that I
was not responsible for procuring the corpses and I did not presume to dictate where the Kyrgyz
professors should obtain their corpses. STERN gave me from 10:14 PM on Sunday, November 2,
2003, until 12:00 PM on Monday, November 3, 2003 — just under 14 hours — to respond to their
article. The following is an excerpt from my response: “...According to the information given to me
by Prof. Gabitov, these corpses were unclaimed; the use of such corpses for anatomical purposes
is regulated in such a way that there can be no doubt whatsoever as to the legality of their use. I
did not concern myself with additional details, because that was not my job….”
I did not shift the responsibility onto my partners, nor did I break a co-operation agreement
STERN: “When it was learned in 2001 that the Medical Academy of Novosibirsk had delivered 56
corpses of questionable origin to the Institute in Heidelberg, he shifted responsibility onto his
partners and broke off the co-operation agreement.”
Von Hagens: I never shifted responsibility onto my partners; it is clearly spelled out in the cooperation agreement that I have nothing to do with procuring the corpses. And I couldn’t have had
anything to do with it, either, because I’ve never even been to Novosibirsk. I reviewed the
documents and, upon the request of Professor Efremov, the rector of the Academy in Novosibirsk,
I terminated co-operation (see copy of the original German document no. 9 in the appendix.)
Kyrgyz scientists want hot food, too.
STERN: “To make the long return trip from Heidelberg to Bishkek worth the effort, the truck also
transported all manner of medical equipment, computers, and household appliances such as
refrigerators and microwaves, all of which were declared as humanitarian aid and thus not taxed.”
Von Hagens: This gives the impression that I included household appliances because it was to my
advantage. The truth is that employees in Kyrgizstan eat their lunch in an on-site kitchen — the
household appliances were included for this purpose, which can be proven.
Some subject knowledge is required here: The rate of diffusion is not dependent upon the age of
the tissue.
STERN: “‘Young bodies work best for Plastination. Bodies that are more than 50 years old do not
work,’ says one employee in Kyrgizstan.”
Von Hagens: Plastination involves a diffusion process carried out under vacuum in which a
polymer permeates cell walls, and, as such, age has absolutely no effect on suitability for
Plastination. This assertion is an insult to most donors, who, on average, were 53 years old at the
time of death. The best evidence that this assertion is nonsense is the plastinate of the donor
whose body I dissected at a public autopsy in England. He died at the age of 72 and can now be
seen at the BODY WORLDS exhibition that opened on November 9, 2003, in Singapore.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
9
Plastination of the corpse that was publicly dissected in London in 2002
Documents verify that I ended the co-operation with Professor Gabitov and not the other way
around.
STERN: “His legal representative in Kyrgizstan, Professor Gabitov, broke off their co-operation as
the result of a dispute…”
Von Hagens: As my letter of December 1, 2001, to Professor Gabitov states, I was the one who
terminated our co-operation, which I did for the following reasons (quote):
“The key reasons for ending our co-operation are as follows:
(1) Bookkeeping … has been unsatisfactory for months.
(2) I have been inadequately informed of grievances.
(3) You continue to use the VW bus as your private vehicle.
(4) Appearing at the university under the influence of alcohol, shouting at co-workers, failing to
appear at work … for days … is … unacceptable…” (see original German document no. 9 in the
appendix).
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
10
After co-operation was terminated, it came to light that Prof. Gabitov had falsified documents, had
failed to use funds made available to him for the purpose of paying taxes, and had pressured
employees to sign falsified documents. These accusations are on record in Bishkek.
I fired Dr. Sui Hongjin; he did not leave of his own accord.
STERN: Even Dr. Sui Hongjin, who assisted in setting up the centre in Dalian, has distanced
himself from von Hagens. Quote: ‘He’s changed. Back when he was a scientist — now he’s
nothing but a businessman —’ says the former friend, ‘he realised what a lucrative business the
exhibitions could be. When I said I was leaving the business, he gave me a great deal of trouble,’
says Dr. Sui.”
Von Hagens: The truth is the other way around. I trained Dr. Sui Hongjin for one and a half years in
Germany. When he repeatedly called in sick, I looked into the reasons and discovered in the spring
of 2002 that he had been taking the expertise he had gained in my company and, in part at my
expense, used it to set up a competing company. When I confronted him with this, he left the
company. He has since announced that he will soon be opening up his own BODY WORLDS
exhibition. He’s already advertising in newspaper interviews; the plastinates shown in this context
include a copy of the “Skin Man”.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
11
From: the “Dalian Daily” of September 17, 2003
Comparisons to Auschwitz are an insult to concentration camp victims and to donors alike.
STERN: “‘I’ve never seen anything like it,’ says Bakybyek Turdaliyev, Chief of Forensic Medicine in
Bishkek. ‘Pictures like that you normally would only associate with Auschwitz.’”
Von Hagens: Images like this are familiar to any forensic doctor from having exhumed corpses and
to any anatomist from having studied dissection; drying and decomposing corpses certainly do not
look any prettier. Conditions in the dissection areas at Bishkek are exemplary for Russia and
Kyrgizstan. In Bishkek I invested around Euros 175 000 for improvements in infrastructure and
corpse preservation alone. I installed the cold-storage room there. When I let Prof. Gabitov go, the
cold-storage room was empty because corpses used for Plastination are preserved via
formaldehyde injections and not frozen.
The forensic doctor…[translation of caption: A forensic doctor performs an autopsy on a confiscated corpse. In his hand he is holding
the heart, which has already been filled with plastic.]
Author’s note: The gentleman smoking next to the corpse is not a forensic doctor. His is a dissection assistant named Sergrey Nekapie.
He does not have any specialised medical training. This morbid photo was taken in the forensic medicine area and shows day to day
reality there. The corpse shown is not from the anatomical section nor is it to be used for anatomical purposes.
Professorial titles from China and Kyrgizstan are legitimate, too.
STERN: “Von Hagens does not have a real professorial title from Germany — his title is merely as
a visiting professor in China.”
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
12
Von Hagens: The “visiting professor” title in China is not the only one I use: I was also named an
“honorary professor” at the Medical Academy in Bishkek, Kyrgizstan. Professorial titles from China
and Kyrgizstan are also legitimate, and I see no reason to be ashamed of them. I do not place any
value on obtaining the title of professor in Germany; if I did I would not have broken off my
university career in Germany a number of years ago. (Copies of documents confirming both
professorial titles and the permit from the North Rhine-Westphalia Ministry for Science and Art.)
(See original German documents nos. 14 and 15 in the appendix)
There was no stench of decay in any of the Academy’s branch campuses.
STERN: “In one of the Academy’s branch campuses … the stench of decay was so unbearable
that the laboratory had to be set up outside of the city.”
Von Hagens: There is no unbearable stench of decay at the institute in question, nor is this institute
a branch of the Academy. Because the enzymatic corrosion process developed in Kyrgizstan is
practically odourless, it is also performed at the Medical Academy in the city. In addition to my work
at the Medical Academy, I also perform scientific work at the Institute for High-Elevation Physiology
and Pathophysiology; this institute is in no way a branch campus of the Medical Academy.
The corpses “found” at the Academy were collected after co-operation had been terminated.
STERN: “Von Hagens had a close working relationship with the Medical Academy in Bishkek, yet
anyone who looks around there is bound to have a few doubts.... A raid on the Medical Academy
revealed piles of corpses in the cellar all frozen together. Not only had these corpses not been
studied, they were in some cases still dressed — some of them had been in storage there for two
years.”
Von Hagens: As my letter to Prof. Gabitov demonstrates, my co-operation with the Academy
ended two years ago. Even STERN indicates this in its article. The words “…some of [these
corpses] had been in storage there for two years” therefore do not apply to me. Why Gabitov
collected and froze the corpses after our co-operation had ended, I cannot say. I did not at that
time have any access whatsoever to the cold anatomical storage room that I had financed.
Prof. Gabitov provided written assurance that no BODY WORLDS plastinates had come from
Kyrgizstan.
STERN: “Yet it was not just his close associate Prof. Gabitov who explained that roughly one third
of the BODY WORLDS exhibits are from Kyrgizstan …”
Von Hagens: In a May 21, 1998, letter to the KGB, Mr. Gabitov himself assured the following: “In
addition, the specimens were prepared in Germany. Not even the dissection step prior to silicon
infusion was performed by Kyrgyz workers. This makes it utterly impossible to indicate the origin.”
(See German translation of original Russian document no. 7 in the appendix)
Assertions made in the FAKT episode entitled “Update on the BODY WORLDS Exhibition”,
broadcast on November 3, 2003.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
13
No organs and no body parts for Germany
FAKT: “Plastic bins full of human organs… body parts, prepared for shipment to Germany.”
Von Hagens: These specimens were being sent from Germany to Bishkek. This can be confirmed
by reviewing shipping papers and testimonies.
Not just a few, but many specimens were returned to Kyrgizstan as teaching materials.
FAKT: “Only a few specimens were returned to Kyrgizstan as teaching materials.”
Von Hagens: A total of 4658 anatomical specimens with a total weight of 13,713.00 kg were sent
by truck from Heidelberg to Bishkek. These 4658 specimens included 1242 plastinates (513
plastinated silicon specimens, 729 plastinated body slices) and 3416 formaldehyde specimens.
Until 2001, all unclaimed corpses were kept at the Academy for 1 month
FAKT: Mr. Tashtanbekov has no doubts about it: “Virtually none of the bodies included on the long
list of processed corpses were from donors or unknown individuals.”
Von Hagens: To the best of my knowledge, until 2001 Kyrgyz law required that all unclaimed
corpses at the Institute for Anatomy be stored frozen for at least one month and only then
preserved. The complaint is therefore without substance, as this was established practise in both
Kyrgizstan and Russia.
My explanations were not drowned out by protests from the members of Parliament
FAKT: “Last week: Discussions in the Kyrgyz parliament. The plastinator maintains that all of the
allegations are unfounded and rejects statements made by his former director as merely revenge
for the latter’s dismissal. His attempts at justification, however, were largely drowned out by the
protests of the members of Parliament.”
Von Hagens: The opposite is true. The vast majority of the members of Parliament voted to hear
what I had to say. The only disruption came at the beginning when one member of Parliament
demanded that I remove my hat.
My statements regarding Kyrgyz plastinates in the exhibition do not contain contradictions.
FAKT: “Gunther von Hagens: ‘I wish to make absolutely clear that I have never plastinated anyone
from Kyrgizstan for use in the exhibition.’ Yet Gunther von Hagens is contradicting himself when he
says this. In February 2001, when he was hoping to make the public believe there was a Kyrgyz
donation programme, the plastinator claimed something quite different. Gunther von Hagens: ‘So
why am I now including donors from Kyrgizstan and China as well? Simply in recognition of the
good work done by the local dissectors who have helped with the project.’”
Von Hagens : There is no contradiction here. It is true that in February 2001 I said that I would now
also be including donors from Kyrgizstan and China. 2001, however, was also the year in which I
terminated co-operative efforts with Prof. Gabitov for the reasons stated above and in the
appendix. In addition, research showed that using Chinese donors in the exhibition would require
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
14
endless government permits, which is why I ultimately abandoned the idea. There was no reason
at that time to make a public statement about this change in plans.
Incidentally, I did not, as FAKT asserts, intend to make the public believe that there was a Kyrgyz
donation programme, because the donation programme really does exist. Russian donation
brochures and donated bodies received at that time all testify to this fact (see excerpts from the
Russian brochure, document no. 16 in the appendix).
Regarding the demand made by the Hamburg SPD to close the BODY WORLDS exhibition:
The Social Democratic Party of Hamburg is demanding that BODY WORLDS be shut down
immediately because, as Party chair Walter Zuckerer puts it, “it is our view that valid laws have
been violated.” From: Hamburger Abendblatt, November 10, 2003: “SPD: Shut Down BODY
WORLDS Immediately”).
Von Hagens: No valid laws have been violated in any way. Were that the case, these violations of
the law would have been mentioned in connection with the demand to ban the exhibition. The use
of unclaimed corpses for anatomical study is legal in Germany and elsewhere. Details regarding
these legal provisions were given above in the introduction.
Quotes from an Article in “Die Welt” from November 7, 2003, p. 27, by Matthias Kamann
“What does this man want with 30 tons of human meat? … even these 29 298 kg are an outrage....
How, in civilised Western states, can the market develop that would be needed to support this kind
of excessive economic growth?.... while, from the outside, von Hagens may appear to be dealing in
death pornography, from inside the exhibition it looks more like health pornography.” (Fig. xx. Scan
in portions of the article including the headline and sections containing these passages.)
Von Hagens: In all civilised states, medical students are obliged to study real human specimens.
As a result, a good 100 tons of “human meat” — to quote Kamann’s deliberately cannibalistic word
choice — are utilised by medical students each year in Germany. Where is the outrage in that? It is
an outrage when real human specimens can only be used by a select few, that is, by students in
wealthy countries, especially when plastinates are so suitable for poorer countries, particularly in
the tropics where wet specimens dry out very quickly. This is another reason why I provide finished
plastinates to countries such as Burkina Faso, Honduras, Mexico and Caribbean nations.
If the BODY WORLDS exhibition is health pornography, then that holds true for any anatomical
instruction using real specimens.
The work done in Novosibirsk and Bishkek has made an extraordinary contribution to
anatomical science and research, and has at its foundation the rule of law.
(1) The agreement between the KSMA (the Kyrgyz State Medical Academy) and the Institute for
Plastination in Heidelberg permits the use of Kyrgyz specimens for the purposes of teaching,
research and popular education, which includes international exhibitions. The following is a quote
from the February 20, 1997, agreement with the KSMA, as represented by I. K. Akylbekov,
regarding the establishment of a Plastination centre at the State Medical Academy. Ҥ 3.1:
Organising Plastination museums and exhibitions of plastinated specimens both in Kyrgizstan and
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
15
abroad shall be an aim of the Centre.” (see German translation of original Russian document no. 3
in the appendix)
(2) Without the benefit of government moneys, I established a Plastination museum in Bishkek,
Kyrgizstan, containing over 1600 plastinates. A total of 4500 formaldehyde specimens were sent to
Bishkek for teaching purposes and 30 Kyrgyz scientists received permanent positions in
Plastination research. Another 20 scientists came to Germany for training.
(3) There is no law that would prohibit me from importing anatomical specimens into Germany,
regardless of the quantity. Since its inception, the field of anatomy has always included unlimited
international exchange. Plastinates are “anatomical collection pieces” and are shipped under
customs classification number 97050000. This customs number includes by definition “zoological,
botanical, mineralogical and anatomical collections and collection pieces.”
(4) The law contains no provisions that would prevent me from legally exhibiting specimens in my
possession to the public. Using only donated bodies for the whole-body specimens shown in an
exhibition is a commitment that I made of my own initiative and one that seeks to honour the wish
of the donor to be exhibited. At the same time, this commitment has served as an advertisement
for the donation programme.
(5) The law contains no provisions would prohibit me from making plastinates permanently
anonymous.
One-sided reporting on the part of FAKT (MDR) and STERN will only do a disservice to
anatomical science and foreign aid.
German media publications also have influence abroad. Through their one-sided and false
representation of the facts, FAKT and STERN have had a significant impact on recent
developments in Kyrgizstan. Both the rector of the Medical Academy and the Director of the
Institute for High-Elevation Research, both of whom were the main proponents of Plastination
research in Bishkek, Kyrgizstan, are no longer in office. They were coerced into resigning and/or
fired. As a result, the 30 employees whose positions I had financed in Kyrgizstan also lost their
jobs. I cannot currently continue my work in Kyrgizstan. Furthermore, these reports have
discredited the German media, which is for the most part respectable. In Kyrgizstan, the true
nature of the case has meanwhile become widely known.
On Inventors, Democratisation, Character Assassination, Much Ado about Titles and path
forward.
Inventors have seldom been recognised during their lifetimes. Edison, my personal role model,
constitutes a major exception to this rule. He financed his research and inventions himself and was
interested only in inventions that had economic potential. To hear the manner , in which the
economic success of the BODY WORLDS exhibition has been discussed in certain sectors of the
media, one would think that I should be ashamed of this success. Yet all I am doing — no more
and no less — is complying with the modern cultural mandate that exhibitions and museums
finance themselves as much as possible. Earning money is not in and of itself praiseworthy or
reprehensible, but rather what one does with that money.
I am a firm believer in the power of democracy. One of the clearest manifestations of this belief is
that ordinary citizens have been streaming into the exhibition by the millions — an exhibition which
has been condemned exclusively by conservative intellectuals — in order to educate themselves
and experience their own bodies in a new way. No other exhibition is currently more popular than
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
16
BODY WORLDS . With it, I have found favour among laypersons, among the masses, and have
lost favour with many intellectuals. I can certainly live with that.
As much as I value criticism both as a welcome challenge to my own ideas and wishes as well as a
constant aid in decision-making, nevertheless, I am not prepared to accept unfounded attempts at
character assassination by the media — most notably by MDR and STERN. As a respectable, lawabiding citizen of this country, my dignity is also inviolable and I also have a right to balanced
coverage in the media.
The use of one-sided, skewed, or just plain false arguments as a means of manipulating opinion is
familiar to me only from my days as a citizen of the former East Germany. But perhaps some MDR
employees in Leipzig are still caught up in that tradition.
Nothing has come of the massive allegations made earlier in reports about, for instance, the
Novosibirsk case. To this day FAKT has not apologised to me.
Recent allegations, which preliminary proceedings and house searches were intended to verify,
have likewise come to nothing. Proceedings initiated by the district attorney’s office regarding
alleged violations of the law in the case of the plastinated gorilla have been dropped. The same
applies to the allegation of disturbing the peace of the dead, which arose as a result of a series of
photos appearing in MAX magazine; the photos offended because they were taken of plastinates
at night in front of Munich landmarks. All that remains is the accusation that I had passed myself off
in China as a University of Heidelberg professor. I have been able to produce documents that
clearly disprove this. The Dalian Hi-Tech Zone Investment Bureau provided me with the following
confirmation: “... Dr. Gunther von Hagens never stated that he himself is a professor in Heidelberg
University, and also didn’t provide any identity proof concerning professorship in Heidelberg
University…” (see English translation of original Russian document no. 17 in the appendix) Ding
Na, a secretary at Von Hagens Plastination (Dalian) Co., Ltd. also provided confirmation:“… I have
taken the minutes at all important meetings with employees, visitors and government officials since
1999. Neither at these meetings nor, to the best of my knowledge, on any other occasion did
Gunther von Hagens ever give the impression, let alone claim, to have been a professor at the
University of Heidelberg, Germany…”(See German translation of original Chinese document no. 18
in the appendix)
My signature had been forged on the document brought forth as evidence in this case.
If I am to meet the expectations that exhibition patrons and, most importantly, donors have of me
as an inventor and scientist, i.e., that I continue developing Plastination technology, that I continue
presenting better plastinates that have never been seen before, that I again register patents, and
that I produce scientific publications, I absolutely must reduce the potential for future libel. To this
end I have decided on the following:
(1) I will no longer accept anatomical specimens from states of the former Soviet Union or from
similar states for use in research, teaching or Plastination; neither will I renew co-operative efforts
with the Medical Academy in Novosibirsk, which have since been terminated.
(2) I will no longer use any titles, nor will I accept any new titles. “Gunther von Hagens, plastinator”
will upset neither professional colleagues nor church representatives. I am, after all, practising a
profession that I have invented myself.
Vouching for accuracy.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
Signed: Gunther von Hagens
(Plastinator)
17
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
18
Annex:
(1)
Initial agreement with KSMA – 14/5/1996
(2)
Request from Rector Mursalejev to establish a Plastination centre at KSMA –
1/11/1996
(3)
Contract to establish a Plastination centre at KSMA – 20/02/1997
(4)
Statutes of the Plastination Centre – 03/03/1997
(5)
Reminder of duties from Prof Gabitow as co-ordinator - 05/04/1997
(6)
Declaration on taking over bookkeeping by Prof. Gabtiov - 08/04/1997
(7)
Declaration of Prof. Gabitow to the KGB - 21/05/1998
(8)
Interruption of work because of administrative problems – 19/11/2001
(9)
Letter to Prof. Gabitow on terminating co-operation – 01/12/2001
(10)
Letter to Rector at KSMA on “administrative problems” – 12/01/2002
(11)
Protocols 2 and 3 on dismissal of Prof. Gabitow - 26/02/2002
(12)
Laudatio in conjunction with conferring an honorary professorship of KSMA – 09/11/2000
(13)
Appointment as a member of the advisory council at KSMA – 29/04/2003
(14)
Letter to the Ministry for Science and Research of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia
4/12/2003
(NRW) –
(15)
Official notification of a change from the Ministry for Science and Research of the State of North
Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) – 15/5/2003
(16)
Cover page, pages 3 and 4 of the Russian body-donor brochure, printed in 2001
(17)
Confirmation of the Dalian High-tech Zone Investment Promotion Bureau (Seal) – 3/11/2003
(18)
Declaration to be submitted to German authorities by Ding Na – 16/10/2003
(19)
Declaration to be submitted to German authorities by Christina Bannuscher –
16/10/2003
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
19
Annex
The Specimens of the Institute for Plastination (IfP): Where From and Where To
I. Objectives of the IfP
The objectives of the IfP in Heidelberg are twofold. First: Plastinates have been prepared for the
BODY WORLDS exhibition for the purpose of instructing laypersons; second, anatomical specimens
have been produced for purposes of research, science and instruction.
The overall objective of the IfP is to improve anatomical instruction in general and the medical
information of the populace at large in particular as well as anatomical education at universities. This
objective has been pursued by means of the following measures and projects:
(1) Organising, conducting and continually developing the BODY WORLDS exhibition; preparing
specimens for this exhibition; establishing a third exhibition as a medium-term target and establishing
a museum about man at a permanent venue as a long-term goal.
(2) Producing and turning over anatomical specimens exclusively to institutes engaged in anatomy,
pathology and forensic medicine at universities throughout the world.
(3) Turning over anatomical specimens upon payment of a commensurate sum to cover production
expenses for the purpose of practising operations, as for example, temporal bones for training ear,
nose and throat (E-N-T) specialists.
(4) Turning over anatomical specimens for training students upon payment of a commensurate fee to
cover production expenses.
(5) Turning over anatomical specimens to established natural science museums upon payment of a
commensurate price to cover production expenses.
(6) Our own specimens for an anatomical atlas as well as a computerised anatomical project (CDROM).
II. Plastination Institutions and Co-operation Partners
For its mission of improving anatomical education and research, the IfP is supported by several
scientific institutions founded for this purpose, for which the inventor of Plastination, Gunther von
Hagens, serves as scientific director, as well as by co-operation partners, with whom the IfP has
concluded co-operation agreements.
In addition to the IfP in Heidelberg, the following" Plastination institutions" also exist:
(1) The Plastination Centre at of the State Medical Academy in Bishkek, Kyrgizstan.
(2) The Institute for Plastination at the University in Dalian, P.R. China.
(3) The "Von Hagens Plastination (Dalian) Co., Ltd" in Dalian, China.
Co-operation agreements exist with official, State-certified anatomical institutes, inter alia in Russia,
Japan and the US.
III. Origins of Specimens
The IfP obtains its anatomical specimens from the following sources:
(1) From body-donor programmes: Such programmes have been established in Heidelberg
(Germany), Bishkek (Kyrgizstan ) and Dalian (China)
(2) From established morphological institutes, in particular for anatomy and pathology.
(3) By purchasing old anatomical collections from established institutions. Should such specimens
stem from the period of National Socialism, this is indicated in an appropriate and respectful
manner.
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
20
IV. Recipients of Specimens
(1) The BODY WORLDS exhibition. The body-donor programmes form the anatomical material
basis for the BODY WORLDS exhibition. All of its posed plastinates stem from the body-donor
programmes and in fact nearly all of them come from the German donor programme.
(2) The Plastination institutes in Heidelberg, China and Kyrgizstan are the recipients for traditional
anatomical specimens. These specimens are needed to prepare anatomical atlases and
computerised images.
(3) Co-operation partners of the IfP: Here only those specimens are preferentially used that are
supplied by our co-operation partners themselves.
(4) Institutions of higher learning and museums: In accordance with prior agreements, specimens
are used here that come from all of the IfP’s sources.
V. Donor Consent for Dissection and Plastination
(1) Specimens for the BODY WORLDS exhibition
A fee for the cost of labour and materials (for fixation and Plastination) will be charged when
specimens are passed on for institutional use against payment, but not for the specimens themselves.
The following is thus printed on every invoice for plastinated specimens: "This invoice contains a fee
to cover Plastination costs. The specimens themselves are free of charge; we would like to thank the
donors."
Several individual specimens as well as the majority of embryos and foetuses were originally
preserved in formaldehyde in old museum collections. They have been plastinated for the BODY
WORLDS exhibition.
(2) Specimens from institutions of higher learning and museums
Specimens that the IfP has obtained from institutions of higher learning, such as universities, or from
public museums stem from old institutional collections and from corpses that were turned over for
anatomical purposes in accordance with the respective state laws.
(3) Specimens from Co-operation Partners
These specimens stem from old institutional collections and from corpses that were turned over for
anatomical purposes in accordance with the respective state laws. Here careful attention is also paid
— within the framework of available possibilities — that nobody is sent to an anatomical institute
against his or her will. Moreover, body-donor programmes have been introduced by Gunther von
Hagens both in Kyrgizstan and China.
The practise of providing so-called unclaimed bodies for anatomical purposes was in use in Germany
until the mid-Eighties. Since death benefits have been reduced by legislative changes, anatomical
institutes in Germany have had so many bodies bequeathed to them that they will only accept such
bequests at the beginning of each year.
Consequently, accepting unclaimed bodies has faded into the background here in Germany. In most
countries throughout the world, however, the practise of turning bodies over to anatomical institutes is
accepted, common and frequently regulated by legislation. Hence, it has been determined by law, for
example, that every unclaimed body in the state of Maryland in the US must be turned over to the
State Anatomy Board in Baltimore. There they are preserved and then sent to interested anatomical
institutes for a fee. In Russia comparable regulations on procuring bodies go back to decrees enacted
by Czar Peter I and thus correspond to the sense of tradition of the Russian people.
The IfP has made a concerted effort to sensitise other countries for body-donor programmes as well
as to establish them as a result of "change through rapprochement" via co-operation based on trust.
VI. Corpses or Anatomical Specimens
The IfP in Heidelberg does not obtain any corpses from third parties in accordance with such
legislation, i.e., from co-operation partners and other institutions, but rather "anatomical specimens."
According to burial laws, these are distinguished from corpses by durable preservation, by the
Gunther von Hagens - November 17, 2003
No Skeletons in the Closet — Facts, Background and Conclusions
21
purposes for which they are intended, namely for anatomical studies, instruction and information as
well as by their remaining anonymous. This fully complies with common national and international
anatomical practise that in the meantime has developed throughout 400 years of European
anatomical history.
Two anatomical whole-body plastinates imported from the US in 1990 served as the basis for two
anatomical atlases that depict and explain human body slices.
Cover of the “Colour Atlas of Slice Anatomy“
Participants at the International Plastination Conference that takes place every two years exhibit the
respective plastinates that they have produced. Moreover, exchanging anatomical specimens among
anatomical institutes is nothing unusual.
I have discussed the problem of defining the term “corpse” in detail in my contribution, "Grim and
Gruesome Corpses, Posed Plastinates and Mandatory Burial" in the anthology entitled Schöne Neue
BODY WORLDS (Klett-Cotta, ISBN 3-608-94311-0).
Vouching for accuracy.
(Plastinator)