Balcom
The Nazi Research Ethics Debate
Page 1
“In the interest of...saving lives, is it acceptable to make use of data collected
through mutilation, torture, and death” (Campbell, 16)? That is the question which has
been rearing its head in scientific research since the end of World War II. As man has
sought to quench his thirst for knowledge, lines of ethicality have been drawn to preserve
the integrity of science, and provide a framework from which man can improve upon the
quality of human life. In Nazi concentration and death camps, the gruesome sibling of
science matured. Nazi scientists, physicians, and scholars tore down the ethical
framework of science in order to eliminate the genetically inferior, and ultimately,
attempt to forge a ‘pure’ race of ‘super-humans’. Members of the Nazi scientific
community were to serve as “alert biological soldiers” (Crum, 33). These ‘soldiers’
conducted research on non-consenting camp inmates in order to “demonstrate a
hereditary basis for group differences in behavioral and physical characteristics” in
humans (Caplan, 286). The most well known experiments in this regard were the
experiments conducted on twins at Auschwitz.
The other goal of the Nazi scientists was to provide human data that could be
applied to the war effort. Experimentation of this sort mainly probed the extremes, which
the human body could tolerate in a hostile environment. The most famous experiment of
this sort was the ‘Dachau Hypothermia Study.’ The rationale of the experiments was as
follows:
“A consequence of air combat and air campaigns was that pilots were shot
down and landed in cold water. In addition, the German Navy was losing a
large number of personnel in the cold North Sea. There were no data
available to document how long the downed pilots could survive in the
frigid North Sea. The solution to these questions, as well as others, was
considered important by certain groups of Nazi administrators and
scientists. From a historical point of view, at that time, the number of
papers that had been published that dealt with human response to cold
Balcom
The Nazi Research Ethics Debate
Page 2
water and/or air was very limited...therefore, the German scientists were
seeking answers to “legitimate scientific goals” (Caplan, 98).
The last line, “...German scientists were seeking answers to ‘legitimate scientific goals’”,
is the statement which is the prime concern of this paper.
In order to accomplish their ‘goals,’ Nazi scientists conducted human
experiments, virtually all of which, ended in the subjects’ murder. How can answers to
‘legitimate scientific goals’ be found in murder? Should these experiments even be
considered ‘science’? Furthermore, should these experiments be allowed to provide
quotable data to the modern scientific community?
The debate on whether or not science should allow referencing to Nazi data rages.
Objectors to using Nazi data, state that by using the data from the Nazis’ human
experimentation, researchers are not only endorsing, but also encouraging future
unethical research. In addition, objectors maintain that the Nazi research was poorly
designed and conducted so haphazardly, that it really doesn’t even qualify as ‘scientific’.
They state, “scientific results depended upon protocols which were soaked in iniquity. In
many experiments, it was ‘control subjects’, denied treatment, who suffered most and
died. ‘Sample size’ meant truck loads of Jews. ‘Significance’ was an indication of
misery, and ‘response rate’ a measure of torment” (Dixon, 31).
Objectors to the use of Nazi research believe that nothing good will come from
this research. They believe that using research gathered through murder endorses the
methods used in the experiments. If this statement were to be contested, they would argue
that to cite research is to say ‘I believe in this work’. To believe in research, one must be
inclined to repeat the original work and further investigate the topic. Objectors claim that
this condition is never satisfied. They state, “We do not, to be specific, replicate the Nazi
Balcom
The Nazi Research Ethics Debate
Page 3
experiments. ‘We’ do not do it. The Nazis did” (Campbell, 18). Objectors believe that a
scientist above all else is a human, thus, he must recognize himself as a moral being.
Since humans were murdered in these experiments, the data collected should be
considered ‘tainted’. No moral being should associate with tainted data.
Objectors also believe that the methodology of these experiments cannot be
considered ‘science’. In regard to the infamous hypothermia experiments at Dachau,
United States Brigadier General Telford Taylor, claimed that, “these experiments
revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use” (Moe, 5). Further opinions from
objectors dissect the reliability of the research. Arnold Relman, editor of the New
England Journal of Medicine, states that Nazi experiments “are such a gross violation of
human standards that they are not to be trusted at all...how can you trust a man who
would do that?” (Moe, 6). Therefore, obviously the Nazi data suffers from credibility
issues. Another opinion expressed in Moe’s article was that “If they [Nazis] had never
done these experiments, science would be no different today” (6). It is clear that objectors
do not believe that the research done by the Nazis was science. They maintain that the
moral and ethical aspects of research must be the motivating factors behind scientific
endeavors.
Proponents of Nazi research, on the other hand, argue that the information
provided by the Nazis is indispensable to some areas of modern science. Most supporters
concede that the data was obtained through gruesome, inhumane means. They point out,
however, that such large-scale human experimentation has never been conducted
elsewhere. Therefore, because the research is impossible to replicate, scientists have a
need, in certain instances, to utilize this research in the interest of saving lives. They
Balcom
The Nazi Research Ethics Debate
Page 4
further point out that a significant majority of Nazi data “satisfies all the criteria of
objective and accurate observation and interpretation” (Moe, 6).
Proponents favor salvaging all the good that they can out of the murder of camp
inmates. Angell states “we should redeem whatever small benefits we can from the
nightmare” (1462). An example would be the case of the Dachau hypothermia
experiments. In these experiments inmates were outfitted in German pilot gear and then
submerged at various depths in ice water pools. All of the subjects died. Today, the only
documented data on human hypothermia has been either extrapolated from animal data,
or gathered from accident reports. In the case of the animal data, researchers must make
many assumptions that cannot be proven to be correct. Therefore, the data, which is
generated, is subject to error. Accidental exposure to hypothermia that has been
documented through accident reports gives greater insight but still suffers from a major
problem. The core temperature of the victim is known only in two states, before and after
the exposure. Therefore, only guesses can be made as to how the body reacts to deadlier
temperature drops. John S. Hayward of the University of Victoria, uses the Nazi data. He
uses it to obtain cooling curves, which help him, design protective suits which will
protect people at deadly temperatures. He states, “I don’t want to have to use this data,
but there is no other and will be no other in an ethical world...to not use it would be
equally bad. I’m trying to make something constructive of it” (Moe, 5).
Some scholars argue that Nazi research ending in murder is no different, in terms
of outcome, too military service. They argue that the differences between war and Nazi
research are a means to the same end. They argue, “Some people were ordered to face
bullets and storm a hill; others were...to take an injection and test a vaccine...[researchers]
Balcom
The Nazi Research Ethics Debate
Page 5
did not need to seek the permission of their subjects any more than the...field
commanders” (Rothman, 1198). Hence, proponents might argue that to cite Nazi research
would be very similar to citing the historical significance of a battle.
Proponents also argue that Nazi research was conducted through a scientific
method, the data collected was accurate, and therefore, these experiments should indeed,
be considered science. Proponents argue that propaganda was likely used to mold opinion
in regards to the Nazi research. They believe “denial of scientific validity of Nazi
research may have become entrenched partly to distance the Nazi doctors from postwar
researchers” (Moe, 5). In addition, proponents argue that the following conclusions can
be made in regards to scientific validity of the research:
“1. There was a rationale for the experiments;
2. The experiments were conducted by trained scientists who had
experience in [that] area of science...
3. The data was presented to various scientific audiences in Nazi
Germany
4. The information has been referenced by scientists since World War II
who are knowledgeable in this area; and
5. No one has scientifically debunked the major findings” (Caplan, 102)
From this evidence, proponents therefore adhere to their beliefs that the Nazi
research should be considered science.
Supporting one view in this debate is most likely not the correct solution. Instead,
researchers must determine on their own what significance their actions hold. In this way,
the topic evolves.
To censor the use of Nazi data is retroactive to science. As Buchanan states, “If
exclude from use all the experiments now viewed as unethical, you’d have to tear up half
the medical textbooks” (Moe, 7). However, some believe to cite Nazi research is “to
become an onlooker, and beyond that, an accomplice” (Campbell, 18).
Balcom
The Nazi Research Ethics Debate
Page 6
Most uninformed individuals believe that this debate really has no significance to
them. In speaking with peers, many are of the attitude, ‘Who cares? The Nazis lost the
War. It’s all in the past, its not like that stuff happened anywhere else.’ It is important to
note however, that even in a democracy such as the U.S., this kind of research has
happened. This nation, which condemned the Nazis and passed Nuremburg Laws to
safeguard science, has a checkered past of unethical research. Examples are widespread,
ranging from the radiation experiments conducted on the victims at Nagasaki and
Hiroshima, to the injection of retarded individuals (institutionalized U.S. citizens) with
various diseases such as malaria, dysentery, and influenza. Clearly, the Nazi research is
not isolated in time or geography.
Regretfully, a conclusion cannot be drawn from the argument of citing Nazi
research. Being too quick to censor Nazi cited research could be deleterious not only to
science but also to society as a whole. Crum warns that “in the Western world there is a
form of anti-Nazi ‘bigotry’...that could lead us to adopt the same erroneous public
policies ourselves” (31). Being too relaxed in the standards of scientific research, on the
other hand, allows the possibility of repeating history. Safeguards, must be in place to
discourage and punish acts of unethical research, otherwise people could once again find
themselves in the grasp of horrific experimenters. It must be understood that the Nazis
were human, their experiments had goals, and they sought knowledge much like scholars
of the present. Therefore instead of censoring and debating, maybe, “We should make an
effort to stop using the experience of Nazism as a metaphor for ‘The Cosmic Evil’ and
instead try to read it like a warning label on a bottle under our own kitchen sinks” (Crum,
31).