Should the results of Nazi experiments be used and cited in today medical world?

As long as they're valid sure, we got information out of the killing of people I mean they died for a cause. Don't get me wrong, it was completely barbaric and cruel, but yea.
 
Please read through the site before posting.

A lot of questions arise as to the validity of the results. Would you still agree?
 
Well, one might also ask the question of how did medical knowledge come about in ancient times...or even as most recently as the 19th century. Theres some pretty spooky stuff out there, but the fact is that without such things, medical science would probably not be as far along as it is. If it is beneficial, I think it should be used.
 
Im sure there is a lot of fucked up data they collected and unfortunately we cannot turn back time and change it. BUT, there may be some kind of useful information obtained from all of this. What that is? Im not sure. Im sure most of the data is completey irrelevant and completely insane, but usually Doctors and Scientists have the ability to look past the inhumane data and find perhaps something useful out of something that was so inhumane. Unfortunately, Nazis are human beings too, albeit they are fucked up, but they are yours and I fellow people made up of the same thing as you and me.
 
i think they should, it's still potentially useful information. about the credibility of the research, if there was anyway to falsify the information without doing the kind of experimentation they did, then we should check up on it.
 
Yeah, i read the site, its kinda back and forth for me, like the hypothermia thing, then the inhumane ways of testing,
 
No, and here are my reasons:

1) Lack of reproducibility. You cannot reproduce any of these results in a ethical world. We'd be taking these pseudo doctors without any other evidence to back up their research. Without checks for reproducibility, the results cannot be confirmed, and thus are not good from a research standpoint.

2) Political and bias of the experimenters. The Nazi war machine did whatever it could to show that it was a superior race. All of the doctors and researchers treated these people sub-humanely, and thus, tainted the results with their bias. Its also fair to assume that in their quest for answers, data was probably fabricated and edited.

With these glaring inconsistencies, I dont think it can be used as evidence. Also on a moral note, many of the survivors wish that the data never be used, and under the Hippocratic oath, I would have to abide by their wishes. The data could be used as pointers for areas of research, but as for real evidence to be cited in a journal or publication, its no good.
 
I dont think thats the main argument here. I think its more like "is this reliable data". Your's could be another thread entirely.
 
Which it cant, because nobody in their right minds would subject people to pain and torture for science. Theres no way to retest this in this modern day and age.
 
Exactly. I still cant seem to answer this question because I agree with both sides.

Yes the validity is at question but even a psudo doctor, with enough time, and no leash, could find out soemthing useful.

It stated that the results for some of these experiments have been cited over the years in medical texts; I wonder what good came from those, were their results tainted as well?

I mean, in the research field there is a lot of gray areas when it comes to consistant results and what is considered moral (for your information I dont agree with the Nazi's methods). Quinny touched on it in his first post as well.

Are these results any less valid then other research projects that went on worldwide at this time (assuming there weren't the standards and protocols in place then that there are now when it comes to getting a research project ?
 
But if the data already exits, should it just be left sitting on the table? I mean, its one thing if action has not even taken place, but if it has already happened and can't be undone...?
 
Actually, research has to follow very very stringent regulations now. You would not believe how many reviews and checks every research project goes through from start to finish. For the one I'm working on today, we had to send it through 5 boards to get approved. We have to update each board yearly, and we get interviewed and re-evaluated every 3 years, just like at the start. The boards make sure that we arent doing anything unethical, and the people on these panels range from doctors to non-medical or research personel.

Every project has to go through this, and there are worldwide organizations that make sure its legitimate and tightly regulated. You have to pass two panels for any research, add animals you get three more and lots more checks. Add humans and you get more panels and even tighter checks. Add children, inmates or mentally incapable people in your project and you get watched like a hawk. It would be very hard for any unethical research to occur in most modern countries nowadays. We've had enough fuckups in the past that this is now highly controlled.
 
I read the entire thing, including the descriptions of the experimentation and the pictures of the victims. I still agree they should use the data involved. My grandma was forced out of her country due to the invasion, and many of her family perished in camps. The experiments are despicable. It's revolting just to read about them but from them came some very important data and while we can't go back and change what has happened we can utilize the date for good reason. One quote really stuck with me as I read over the site.

"Perhaps justice would ultimately be served if we were to allow life to emerge from the Nazi murders."

--Baruch Cohen, attorney and ethicist [51]

I also liked how unbiased the site is in that it shows both sides of the issue equally and without restrain.
 
Actually it's probably based more or less on what your believe would be morally and ethically right.....
 
I completely agree with you when you question the data's reliability. It's hard to say, but it was the only experiment of it's kind and I would not expect it to get repeated as most studies are. It's like in lab when everyone does some stupid little experiment. In your own group you might repeat it multiple times, and then the whole class will compare data. There's nothing like that here, it's just these experiments. I do think the experiments could be used to steer other experiments or hypotheses in the right direction, but not quoted as the absolute answer just because they're the only ones of their kind.
 
I still think what the Nazi's did should be examined in some way to see if anything they did is groundbreaking. The Nazi's were incredible when it came to documenting everything they did down to the smallest of details. As horrible as their experiments were you have to step back and ask yourself one question, "where else in the world can you find documentation of horrible experiments like this?" What's done is done, humans really haven't been used like guinea pigs like they did in WW2, the things that were done to them were a one of a kind thing that we will probably (hopefully) never see again.

I vote yay, even though it still questions the ethical basis of obtaining knowledge....
 
Nazi's did document, but they also forged data in order to appease their leaders and keep with the idea that Jew's were an inferior race to their own. Thus, I dont think the data would be completely trustworthy, even if there are meticulous details.
 
Good point, although i'd still guess that some of the date would be rather interesting if found to be true....but then again it would be all guess work to find out what was legit and what wasn't.
 
I think I'm in the same boat as Ryan here. I cannot decide which is the best alternative.

The thing is that no, the ends do not ever justify the means. But like Quinny said, the information is already there, the end is already here, however unjustified it was to get it.

What i think is that there is a level of decision that doesn't need to be made but that is implied if you think that the information should be used; that you're somehow justifying what horrors the Nazis did. I don't think this is true, in that the horrors are horrors, the data, if useful, is useful.

I think that the experiments and the data are separate in that the experiments are morally unjustifiable, and the data are merely numbers and observations. The data itself is only tainted because of its origin, and these data never should have even EXISTED. However, it does, and the data is merely data.

There are two quotes from that site that i think sum up how i feel...

""[The Dachau hypothermia experiments were] conducted without an orderly experimental protocol [and] with inadequate methods and an erratic execution. ... There is also evidence of data falsification and suggestions of fabrication. Many conclusions are not supported by the facts presented. The flawed science is compounded by evidence that the director of the project showed a consistent pattern of dishonesty and deception in his professional as well as his personal life, thereby stripping the study of the last vestige of credibility. On analysis, the Dachau hypothermia study has all the ingredients of a scientific fraud, and rejection of the data on purely scientific grounds is inevitable."

--Dr. Robert L. Berger, New England Deaconness Hospital and Harvard Medical School [8] "

Now, if this is true of all the "science", then we shouldn't use it AT ALL. The facts are not scientific, they should not be used at all. Done.

However:

"We are talking of the use of the data, not participation in these heinous studies, not replication of atrocities. The wrongs perpetrated were monstrous; those wrongs are over and done. How could the provenance of the data serve to prohibit their use?"

--The late Dr. Benjamin Freedman, formerly a bioethicist at McGill University in Montreal [43] "

If any bit of the data provided by the horrors were used to serve a human life, if any of it were in fact valid (which would be backed by a lot of information discovered ethically through true science), then i would see a point in using the data. They wouldn't in any way justify the methods, the data are data, and they would be helping (hypothetically) a human being.

"Perhaps the most intriguing question on which the issue of proper use turns is whether or not scientific data can acquire a moral taint. Common sense seems to indicate that a parcel of information about the physical world is morally neutral."

--Brian Folker and Arthur W. Hafner [42] "

I guess my position is this:

_ If the science is bad science, which most of it undoubtedly is, it should not be used, ever.

_ If there is a trace of good science, it could be used. I say could because im still not too sure. There seems to be some sense of morality still attached to the data, even though they aren't moral...

Here is the list of counterarguments:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/holocaust/experifull.html

Man...
 
Exactly.

The only time the data should be used is if it were scientifically valid.

Given that most if not all of it is definitely not, it has no relevance and no credibility.
 
Why not use information that might help people? Not using the information doesn't change what happened at all.

Like it or not, the Nazi's had some pretty smart scientists, engineers, etc. Bayer asprin was a nazi company but no one seems to have too much a problem with them.
 
Yes, otherwise these people suffered and died for no reason. Their suffering can at least be made to do some good now.
 
I know but if the experiment was valid the first time then it doesn't need to be reproduced.

2. We aren't talking about political and biased experiments we are talking about raw facts taken from Nazi records.
 
No. I agree with Ryan and Rowen and Patty, but should also add that releasing the results would essentially be a promotion of similar experiments in the future. It was a tragedy that the experiments ever happened, regardless of what they brought or didn't bring to the scientific community, and releasing the data might encourage others to perform similar experiments if they thought the data would be useful and could be released.
 
One of the main principles of valid scientific experimentation is that the data is consistently reproducible. The fact remains that while the data is technically reproducible, we wont ever be able to verify because of ethical laws in place all around the world. Thus, even though it can be verified, it wont ever be, so the data is useless.

Also, as stated, who knows what bias the Nazi doctors had? Who knows how much their racial bias infiltrated and influenced their results? In the Nazi system of power, appeasing the higher-ups was paramount, and we have no idea if the data was manipulated in some way in order to do so. The experimenters were obviously racially biased and politically influenced, and it puts high doubt into how much that data could be trusted for accuracy.
 
I know those regulations exist now, but they didnt always exist and thats where the real gem's of research lie. where there was no leash, where the crazy could try crazy shit and get away with it (relatively).
 
i said yes.

i mean, we have the information already. its done. it would be a waste not to use it.

but of course everyone in their right mind would, given the oportunity stopped it from happening. (with the knowledge we have now)
 
I'll bet that if you look back in history, a lot of medical and scientific advances were likely obtained using "inhumane" and "unethical" treatment and practices.

Double-edged sword really.
 
i recently visited Aushwitz (the main concentration camp), pretty nasty stuff there. they told us that the nazi scientist tried to inject different chemicals into patients eyes to try to figure out a way to change the colour of your eyes.
 
ya know, its gonna mostly be either you shouldnt keep it b/c it was inhumane/not accurate and out of date, or we should keep it because it supports what we have found out since then and the information is there and we cant change the past...Ryno, this is quite the controversial topic you've picked...i think yes, we should use the information - its there and although it was illegal, now we can use it for good use. Then again, they were only experiments, and as far as i know nothing spectacular came out of them...experiments are only as accurate as you test them, the next trial could be the one that throws it off...
 
reproducability doesnt matter as much as you say it does.

and say what you want about the nazis, but germans are the smartest fucking people in the world hands fucking down.

they built the jet engine long before anybody else

they had v2 rockets with technology that other countrys couldnt even understand

their weapons and tanks in ww2 were a million times better than ours

they would have invented the atomic bomb before the rest of the world knew it even existed if it wasnt for albert einstein (a german) telling the united states how to build one. This also lead to the united states sabotaging the germans abomb production plants, otherwise they would have built it before the end of the war. so if you thing about it, einstein created the united states current power that it now abuses like a spoiled bitch

After WW2 the russians and americans were fighting to get the brilliant rocket scientists out of germany and into their country to HEAD their space program. like werner von braun.

the AK-47 is one of the best weapons ever made and it is a modified german WW2 weapon

german cars have smoked the rest of the world in reliability and racing since WW2

so i dont know what your problem is but i would definitely trust german doctors and researchers. They havent made the best shit in world for the last century by fucking bullshitting themselves have they?

so when i think of germans i think of 1980 diesel mercedes benz's with 2 million fucking miles on them that still run like new.

and for you saying that we cant use the information, thats just fucking stupid.

 
^I really don't care about what the Germans invented, to me that means nothing when comparing it to the human body. Even today we still struggle to figure out many things about the human body....two completely different things....
 
yeah you know what your right.

that reminds me of the hunter gatherer peoples in africa. They dont know anything about technology but they say they have the best neurosurgeons in the whole world. is that what you mean assfag?

 
That's pretty much what it gets down to for me. I went through the entire thing and was frustrated with the lack of clarity in the question. What exactly does use mean? I hope no one in their right mind really feels that any of that data could be cited as scientific fact. However I feel that using the hypothermia experiment etc as a citation would be acceptable as long as it's only serving as a small piece of the evidence pointing to a conclusion and not as legitimate scientific data.
 
Well the nazis did come up with results. It's not the conclusions we are interested, but the data accumulated. Even if the experiment were horrible in every way, we use that information gained. Although reproducibility is close to impossible does not mean that its totally false.

I remember seeing a Star trek Voyager episode about this topic.One crew member was attacked by a being. The doctor brings a scientist convicted of murdering people and creatures to gain his title as doctor. The crew member refused treatment by this guest due to his history. It was a crime is the information gained by the guest, but if nothing happened, the crew member will die.

In my opinion, yes we should quote the research done by nazis, we cant turn back time, so we should put that information to good use.

 
after reading through the site, im still in no position to evaluate the credibility of the studies. if qualified people examine them and determine the results to be garbage, so be it. but if any of the results are scientifically (though not ethically) valid I'm not opposed to them being public
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top