Nazi Ethical Experiments

A New Era of Ethical Standing
By the end of World War II, German doctors under the command of Nazi officials had completed nearly 30 different types of medical experiments on the captives in Nazi concentration camps.1 Victims of these experiments, including Jews, twins, children, and gypsies, were subjected to high altitudes, freezing temperatures, and sterilization against their will. Despite the obvious unethical nature in which the research from these experiments were obtained, there have been as many as 45 research papers citing the Nazi data on hypothermia alone written since 1945.2 Whether or not the Nazi data should be used in current research and scientific writing is a controversial debate among scientists as of late, with some claiming

that the research should not be wasted so that the victims’ deaths are not in vain. Despite the implications the research could have for society, data that was obtained unethically and without consent of the participants should not be used in current research.
The most important reason, and perhaps the most ignored reason, that this data should not be used in current research is in regards to the feelings and rights of the victims.

The people subjected to the Nazi experiments were forced to participate against their will, and data was extracted from their own bodies without their consent. This occurred even though the notion of informed consent was already a concept among scientific research during the period in which the experiments were conducted. At the Nuremberg Trials of 1945 to 1946, an American doctor spoke on the issues of non-malevolence and informed consent, highlighting that the concepts were known and should have been followed if applicable scientific data was to be obtained.2 (42) In a criminal court case, any data that was obtained in an illegal or unethical manner would be thrown out, no matter how important the implications of that data would be in conviction.3 If we follow these rules in accordance to all other data, why should the data obtained via the Nazi experiments be any different? Two survivors of the Nazi experiments were asked their opinions on the use of the data at a forum in 1988. Both of them were against the use of the research, stating “it is like building on top of Auschwitz” and “no one should be indebted to the Nazis”.3 (430) These two brave women were still around to defend what is rightfully theirs, while most of the victims are not. The scientific community needs to be the voice of those who

cannot be heard.
Another issue with continuing to use the research from these experiments is that it sends a message to future researchers that the data, while unethical, will still be used if deemed “useful”, despite the obvious problems.3 (433) It was discovered that some German medical schools were using the remains of the victims of some of these experiments to teach their students well into the 1980s.2 (42) While this may seem appalling to many of us, in Germany, where the severity of the Holocaust experiments was suppressed for several years, the use of the remains may not have seemed like such an unethical decision.

It is for this reason that we must stop using the data from the Nazi experiments, to relay that unethical and biased research will not be rewarded with

publication.
The final reason that the research of the Holocaust experiments should be put to rest is that the data no longer holds pivotal importance for society today. While hypothermia and high altitude research was of importance during WWII, scientists today have a much better understanding of this phenomena and the research is no longer of much use for saving lives. If the data from these experiments had been on cancer research or some other major cause of mortality, the use of the research may have required more consideration.2 (43)
The research obtained through the Nazi experiments during the Holocaust should no longer be used in current research or writing because it was obtained in an unethical and illegal manner. The use of the data will only cause continued hurt and tension for the victim’s families and others with a personal connection to the Holocaust. People who are against the banning of the data consider it censorship. The retirement of the data in memorial of the lives of the victims would be no different than making the concentration camps themselves historical sites. In the words of Peter Mostow, “if we accept the one sacrifice so readily, why not the other?”4 It is obvious that the research from these experiments has already been used and cited in many scientific journals and research. People cannot “unlearn” what has already been addressed. However, the scientific community can make up for the wrongs of others by discontinuing the research immediately and starting a new era of ethical standing.