1

Title: Can unethically produced data be used ethically?

Author: Dr Ross W. Halpin B. Com (Economics) B.A. (Political Science) Dip. Ed.

(UNSW) MA (Research) PhD University of Sydney,

Research Affiliate, Centre for Values, Ethics & the Law in Medicine School of

Public Health, Sydney Medical School, Sydney University, AUSTRALIA

Abstract

Background: Breaches of medical ethics such as the failure to obtain consent and

the failure to allow exit from an experiment, are but two violations that undermine

scientific and medical research. This paper provides the results of a survey that asked

medical researchers and scientists their views on the use of data from unethical medical

experiments.

Methods: Questionnaires were sent to sixty-eight physicians, bioethicists,

psychiatrists and scientists. Four cases of unethical experiments were presented and

questions related to the use of the data from those experiments were posed to the

participants.

Results: Responses were obtained from 47% (32) of those approached.

Conclusions: The majority of respondents replied that they would use the data if it

would save a life or improve the quality of life of an individual or members of society as

a whole.

Ethical Dilemma, Holocaust, Nazi Doctors, Unethical Experiments, Nuremberg

Code of Medical Ethics, Declaration of Helsinki, Hippocratic Oath

 2

This paper examines the results of interviews that involved thirty-two physicians, scientists,

psychiatrists and bio-ethicists from seven countries – Israel, Australia, UK, USA, Germany, Canada

and South Africa. Each participant received a survey questionnaire that included four case studies and

eight questions. (The program received approval from the Sydney University Human Research Ethics

Committee). Three of the cases involved Nazi experiments; hypothermia, phosgene and tuberculosis

experiments, while the fourth was the Tuskegee experiment. 1

The ethical controversy surrounding the use of unethically sourced data from medical

experiments is largely due to the complex relationships between science and moral

responsibility, which are emotionally laden and consequently frequently misunderstood.

While the issue of using the data was not at the forefront of medical ethics immediately

after the Second World War real interest in the subject began during the 1960s,

intensified in the 1980s and has continued into the twenty first century. Having seen how

it was possible for ethical principles to be over- ridden, rendered dysfunctional, and even

subverted to serve the interests of genocide during the Nazi period, contemporary issues

of medical ethics cannot be considered outside the shadow of the Holocaust. 2

There are a number of definitive opinions regarding whether or not to use this data.

According to the late Dr Benjamin Freedman, a bioethicist from McGill University,

Montreal, Canada, scientific and medical use of these data is not an extension of the Nazi

project. Rather the use causally depends on that project; the project has perished, the

remaining detritus has been co-opted for another purpose, one that is in fact quite

antithetical to the intentions of the Nazis.3 Robert Berger, a physician with a deep interest

1
. The Tuskegee experiment was carried out in the United States from 1932, lasting forty years
and involved 399 African Americans, all of whom suffered from syphilis.

2
Caplan AL. quoted by Isabel Wilkerson in ‘Nazi Scientists and Ethics Today’, The New York
Times, May 21 1989

3
Freedman B. ‘Moral Analysis and the Use of Nazi Experimental Results’ in Caplan, A.L. (ed.),
 3

in Nazi medicine and the use of data from the Nazi experiments, argues that in being

procedurally devoid of ethics from the very beginning, the scientific integrity of the

experiments was sufficiently compromised to render the results unusable. 4 Eva Mozes

Kor, a twin survivor, believes the data of the dead should be shredded and placed in a

transparent monument, as evidence that they exist, but cannot be used. 5 Others hold that

the experiments were of such a heinous and cruel nature that to use the data would align

the researcher with the perpetrator.6 These are powerful and convincing arguments that

raise counterarguments based on anything from emotion, philosophy, religion, science

and profit to society’s expectations or government policy. Significantly though, all of

these arguments are influenced by moral perceptions of what is right or wrong.

Before proceeding to the results of the oral history it is important to be aware of the

following:

1. Since the end of the Second World War the data from the Nazi experiments have been

used and /or cited on over fifty occasions. This particularly applies to data from the

hypothermia experiments
When Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust. Totowa, New Jersey, Humana Press,
1992.

4
Berger RL. ‘Nazi Science: Comments on the Validation of the Dachau Human Hypothermia
Experiments’, in Caplan, A.L. (ed.), When Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust, op.
cit., pp. 128.

5
Kor EM. ‘Nazi Experiments as Viewed by a Survivor of Mengele’s Experiments’, in Caplan,
A.L. (ed.), When Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust, op. cit., p. 7.

6
Vigorito SS. ‘A Profile of Nazi Medicine’, in Caplan, A.L. (ed.), When Medicine Went Mad, op.
cit., pp. 13.
 4

2. A code of medical ethics for research was first introduced in Germany in 1900 and

was reaffirmed and supplemented with extremely stringent guidelines to protect

human subjects involved in medical research in 1931

3. The medical consultant for the prosecution at the Nuremberg medical tribunal, Dr Leo

Alexander, enthusiastically endorsed and recommended the use of the freezing

experiment data by the US defense forces

4. Scientists, medical historians and bioethicists have recommended the use of the data 7

Case Study – Example from questionnaire

The Children of Bullenhuser Damm.

In November 1944, 20 Jewish children between the ages of 5 and 12 were sent to Neuengamme

concentration camp and were used as human guinea pigs in a series of experiments to determine

whether children had any natural immunity to tuberculosis. The procedure involved the removal of the

child’s lymph glands for analysis and the injection of living tuberculosis bacteria into their veins and

thus directly into their lungs. The children became seriously ill and either died from the experiment or

were murdered by the SS.

Questions for participants

What is more relevant? The use of the data for scientific research and the saving of a life or the non-

use of the data on moral and ethical grounds in the name of the victims and also for the reputation of

scientific research.

In the case of the Bullenhuser Children if the data were available and indicated scientific validity

should the fate – pain, suffering and death – of the children influence the decision to use the data?

7
Included were Dr Robert Pozos, a scientist and specialist in hypothermia as was Dr Robert Haywood a
Canadian scientist both of whom used the data. Dr Andrew Ivy a consultant at the trials who initially advocated
the use of some of the data (see R.Pozos ‘Scientific Enquiry and Ethics: The Dachau Data in Caplan, AL (Ed.)
When Medicine Went Mad. For an in-depth analysis of the literature critique refer to Halpin R. ‘A History of
Concern’ www.ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/4010
 5

General Observations

Before proceeding to a more detailed review of the oral history program, the following

observations from the survey can be made:

1. All participants acknowledged the unethical and heinous nature of the experiments.

2. In all cases where the use of the data was advocated, scientific validity was deemed to be

essential. The fact that none of the experiments could be duplicated without the loss of

life, automatically brings one to the conclusion that the experiments were unscientific.

3. In the responses not one participant addressed the issues that are the cornerstone of the

code of ethics in human research; consent of the patient and the commitment to do no

harm.

4. In respect to those who supported the use of the data, the potential to save a life or

improve quality of life was paramount. Those advocating the use of the data used non-

emotive, objective language to emphasise the benefits derived and rationalise their

adherence to the utilitarian theory of ethics.

5. Those who propounded the non-use of the data used more emotive language with

emphasis on the honour and dignity of scientific research. They particularly stressed the

need to honour the victims. Even were the experiments judged to be scientifically sound,

some respondents, all of them Jewish, would condemn the use of the data. They were

outraged by the experiments and felt it their duty to protect the honour of the victims by

rejecting the results in any form.

6. Despite acknowledging it, the majority of those who favoured the use of the data did not

take the heinous nature of the experiments into consideration in coming to their decision.

Overall the arguments were based on the present and the future as opposed to the past.

7. The majority of female respondents advocated the use of the data.

 6

8. Among the Jewish responses approval and disapproval were divided equally.

Discussion

The case for use of the data*

The rationalisation for the use of the data was largely based on two arguments: benefits

versus costs and paying homage to the dead, both under the proviso that use of the data

would not encourage further unethical research.

Physician Dr B explains ‘... while on the surface perverse, if data currently exists that has

been garnered from Nazi research, then I believe the potential value of this to current

patient management may, in certain circumstances, outweigh the moral concerns.’

Dr I, a bio-ethicist, argues along similar lines, setting two conditions: (a) the benefits

must significantly outweigh the costs; and (b) a deterrent factor must be included to

prevent those seeking to ‘break ground’ from doing unethical research.

Dr E, a scientist, felt that using the data would be paying homage to the victims arguing

‘I do not believe it to be morally or ethically wrong in the name of the victims to use the

data…it is better to pay homage to the victims by using the data to the good of others

rather than bury it and not put it to good use…I believe there is a fundamental imperative

to help our fellow man, even in the face of tragedy…this is maximizing benefit to

mankind from tragedy.’

*
All respondents received the questionnaire by email or post during late 2007 and completed
and returned by June 2008. A number of respondents requested anonymity hence each
respondent receiving an alphabetical identification.
 7

In addressing the impact of using the data on science, Dr E acknowledges the unethical

practices of Nazi medicine but suggests that science and ethics can be separated, ‘the

deeds have been done, nothing can change that fact, but basically some good can come

from evil. Scientific reputation now rests on what we do with the data, not how it was

obtained’. E adds ‘if data can be reliably assessed and used for good, then I believe that

scientific reputation can be established. Indeed not to use the data would call scientific

credibility into question.’

Dr O, a physician, academic and medical researcher, expressed a similar view,

maintaining that ‘it was an ethical outrage that such experiments took place. However,

the fact that they did is now a matter of history. If the information gained can save future

lives or improve the human condition, then the information should be able to be used.’

Dr D, another scientist, argues that ‘… it is more relevant to use available data to

improve or save human lives provided that in doing so there is no risk that it could

encourage further unethical research.’

Dr L, an academic and philosopher arguing for the use of the data, highlights the

complexity of the dilemma facing the medical professional. He believes there is no

simple answer to such a question and that it really depends on the consequences that

could follow if such data is used. According to L, one of the determining factors is

whether ‘there is evidence that the use of the data will be used to justify similar research

procedures in the future’. If so, use of the data would be unacceptable. If, on the other

hand, there were a guarantee that it would not be misused to justify similar research

procedures, use of the data could be acceptable on the basis of saving or improving lives.

On meeting this criterion, L presents two further considerations with relation to the use

of the data regarding potential further suffering of participants and the suffering of
 8

families of those lost to such experiments, arguing “if there is the potential for suffering,

… the answer will be less clear, … Here we will need to balance between: (a) the interest

of those whose life could be improved or saved by treatment resulting from research

making use of morally problematic data, and (b) the interests of those who already

suffered from the SS doctor’s immorality and have an interest in the rejection of such

data in current and future research.”

The cardiologist Dr A draws an analogy to murder, stating that from every crime,

particularly murder, there are ‘lessons to be learned’. From each murder he contends

“society should learn in order to prevent further murders occurring,” adding “when I

viewed all of these questions and when I looked at the cases, I saw them in the same

light, namely they were murders from which we all needed to learn.” Dr A maintains that

while it is rather clichéd to say someone ‘died in vain’, he believes that in many ways the

memorial to a person who has died at the hands of another is the realization by others of

a means of preventing that occurring again. He goes on to say in the answer to the

questionnaire that “I found the accounts of the experiments very disturbing but if they

were collected scientifically, however horrific they were, I feel that the data could be

used in the same way as we learn from every murder in society…I think that the data if

valid should be used to save the life of another following on from the argument that I

have expressed.”

The response from Dr T embodies the complexity of the arguments. He examines the

case for and against the use of the data in considerable detail stating, “I agree with the

basic line of reasoning that the scientific validity of the findings is not sufficient moral

justification of itself to make the use of such data ethically acceptable … [yet] there may

be priorities other than protecting the memory of victims and the reputation of science

that we need to take into account that mitigate against complete prohibition.” He
 9

comments on the impact of relative and absolute prohibition citing two examples of the

former: the Pernkopf Atlas and Cancer research, both of which have been widely used,

cited and, according to Dr T applied for therapeutic purposes. He suggests that those

advocating prohibition might argue that this “critical, relativising stance offers no

resolution of this ethical dilemma nor helps us to make ‘better’ decisions.” They would

argue that only complete prohibition on the use of the data, denying its legitimacy, would

be acceptable. An example of partial use of the data occurs in the case of work carried

out by the scientists Haywood and Pozos who, while acknowledging that the experiments

were flawed, used data which suited their needs. 8 Dr T is interested not only in the

scientific status of Nazi medicine. He wants to know and feels it to be particularly

important that medical researchers know ‘Why unethical research?’ He wants medical

researchers “to be curious about who, what, where and when of destructive Nazi

research.” He contends “absolute prohibition runs the risk of providing a new generation

of medical researchers with the comfort of critical distance from unethical Nazi research

and suffering.” Prohibition can serve to insulate researchers from criticism, by allowing

them to imagine that there is no affinity between their own research enterprise and Nazi

research practices.

This line of reasoning is similar to that of Dr Velve Greene who argues “I submit that we

must put the Holocaust and the Nazi experiments directly under the floodlights and on

centre stage even if some of us and our past and present are partly illuminated by the

glare.”9 Greene suggests that instead of banning or prohibiting the Nazi data it should be

part of the curriculum of every medical school in the world. Dr T argues there is an

8
Halpin, RW ‘A History of Concern’ www.ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/4010 pp. 92-95

9
V.Greene, Can Scientists Use Information Derived from the Concentration Camps: Ancient
Answers to New Questions from When Medicine Went Mad A.L. Caplan (ed.) New Jersey.
Humana Press. 1992. P. 169
 10

obligation within the scientific community to offer researchers and scholars the chance to

bear witness to the suffering of those who were the victims of ‘unregulated’ science. Dr

T acknowledges that the recent history of medical research is made up of a long list of

unethical projects including, for example, the Tuskegee study. He contends “the Nazi

medical data may serve as a warning and a lesson of what can happen when researchers

objectify and materialize the value of human subjects of their research.”

Condemning the use of the data

Those rejecting the data used emotive language and strongly argued that scientific

validity, the question of ethics or the contribution to humanity was not an issue. The

responses were emphatic in stating that there was a duty towards the victims and towards

the integrity of science and medical research to condemn the experiments and reject the

data. With the exception of one respondent, those rejecting the use of the data were

Jewish, the majority living and working in Israel which might indicate a direct or indirect

involvement with persons who suffered during the Holocaust.

Dr F a physician and medical researcher, explains “in my opinion, in the names of the

victims, and for the sake of remembrance, nobody should use, cite, mention or quote any

of the results/materials/conclusions etc. of any infamous Nazi experiments... any use of

these findings will commemorate these monsters in a more favourable way, which is

unthinkable.” Dr F continues “these data can be mentioned, naturally, when one is

dealing with the Nazi doctors atrocities in historical perspectives however any so-called

scientific findings which were achieved by illegal/unethical methods (on human beings

or on animals) should be condemned and erased from any real scientific

journal/lectures/books at once.”
 11

Following along similar lines Dr G another physician and medical research specialist,

states, “there is no doubt in my mind that... the non-use of the data on moral and ethical

grounds in the name of the victims and also for the reputation of scientific research – is

far more relevant... Although the data exists and one cannot change the past – one can

certainly demonstrate disgust and disapproval of the revolting way and the non-scientific

methods [in which] the data were initially achieved.” Such display and expression of

rejection provides a yardstick against which to measure future potential situations that

may allow performing experiments of this repulsive and immoral character. By using this

data for further scientific research and for the saving of a human life, one actually

demonstrates his own immoral values and provides some form of justification of such

acts.

Drs H and S both medical researchers, agree that the non-use of the data on moral and

ethical grounds in the name of the victims and also for the reputation of scientific

research is more relevant.

Dr U states clearly that “the reputation of scientific research is far more relevant than the

use of data which was tainted with the blood of innocent people.”

Dr W says, “the use or citation of the data which was obtained by unethical means would

be an insult to the participants. In my opinion it would legitimize the medical

experiments.”
 12

Should unethical research data be used or cited?

At a recent international conference in Singapore 10 where I presented the findings of my

research into this question a comment was made by a member of the audience that it was

difficult to understand how any physician would not use the data, whether unethically

derived or not, if it would save a life. The questioner, a physician, gave the example of

him being handed a vial with a substance that could save the life of his terminally ill

patient however he knew nothing about its source. Would he use it to save the life of this

patient? Yes he believed he would without hesitation. Another member of the audience

suggested it would be unethical not to use data if it could save a life.

Unfortunately unethical experiments on humans have continued after the Holocaust and

after experiments such as the Tuskegee program that was exposed in the United States.

Henry Beecher in his famous article ‘Ethics and Clinical Research’ 11 demonstrated “that

poor treatment of human subjects was not confined to the barbaric practices of Nazi

doctors that had been documented by the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal…and had…

prompted a reconsideration of research practices that laid the groundwork for today’s

ethical codes and review committees.” 12 The scale and extent of the present day

experiments judged or considered unethical do not match those committed by the Nazi

doctors however unethical experiments still occur. From this study there is a definite

conflict between the adherence to a medical code of ethics such as the Nuremberg

Medical Code, the Declaration of Helsinki and various institutional codes of ethics and

the overarching impact of the Hippocratic Oath, the duty of a doctor to save a life and

10
10th International Conference of Bioethics Singapore July 28 to July to July 31

11
Beecher HK Ethics and Clinical Research The New England Journal of Medicine Vol. 274 No. 24,
June 16, 1966

12
Harkness J, Lederer, SE and Wikler D Laying the ethical foundations for clinical research Bull
World Health Organ Vol. 79, No. 4, Genebra 2001
 13

better the well being of life. The overwhelming majority of respondents used language

that revealed their commitment to saving or improving the quality of life despite the fact

the victim suffered unspeakable cruelty, pain and suffering and in many cases died and in

spite of the fact that the experiments were unethical.

The Nazi experiments and the subsequent Nuremberg medical tribunal were the catalyst

that gave birth to the discipline of bio-ethics as we know it today. The Nazi experiments

were unethical and in the vast majority of cases unscientific and from the very beginning,

particularly with what Dr Leo Alexander and Dr Andrew Ivy knew, the data should have

been condemned. There existed a code of medical ethics that could have provided the

rationale to dismiss the data out of hand. The Daily Telegraph quoted Dr Layton, who

took over the Belsen Hospital in 1945, as saying: “whatever one may think about the

useful knowledge to humanity coming from these experiments, it would be quite wrong

to use such knowledge.”13 By using the data it gave a degree of legitimacy to some of the

experiments and one could ask if by not condemning the experiments from the very

beginning and allowing its use it sowed the seeds that gave license for future unethical

experimentation involving human subjects It can be argued that the codes themselves

were not inadequate, but that they were completely ignored.

In respect to the question of whether to cite or publish the results of what has been

determined as unethical experiments there are conflicting views. To publish or not has

been the subject of debate since the establishment of the Nuremberg code of medical

ethics. This debate has intensified more so over the past twenty years with globalization

and its consequences one of which has been the proliferation of research carried out in

third world countries. A glaring example is where clinical trials are conducted in

countries with different social, economic and cultural structures, such as South Africa,
13
P. Weindling, Nazi Medicine and the Nuremberg Trials: From Medical War Crimes to Informed
Consent, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, pp. 319.
 14

China and Uganda as opposed to rich western countries as France, Germany or the

United States. Due to these differences clinical trials in the former, for ethical reason,

could never be conducted in the latter countries. According to Dr Robert Sade, MD *

writing in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery ** some editors are reluctant to make decisions

regarding what constitutes an unethical study, preferring to leave such judgements to

investigators, research sponsors and institutional review boards. Sade argues the

Nuremberg Code was formulated specifically to denounce as morally culpable and

unacceptable all violations of the rights of research subjects by authoritarian and

politically repressive governments. He adds that with this view, cultural differences

cannot justify ignoring fundamental individual rights. On the other hand the authors of

“Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey”

claim responses to the survey “suggest that science journal editors are not particularly

concerned about publication ethics and generally do not consider problems such as

plagiarism, redundant publication and data fabrication to be more than a minor problem

for their journals”14

However according to the CEJA Report 5 – A – 98 if unsanctioned experiments arise it is

the responsibility of the editors of medical texts to reveal the tainted nature of the data

“Editors and authors have a specific ethical duty to follow the principles outlined in

doctrines developed during the mid-20th century: the Nuremberg Code, the World

Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva, and the World Medical Association’s

Declaration of Helsinki when making decisions about publishing studies that involve

*
Institute of Human Values in Health Care, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston,
South Carolina, USA

**
Sade RM. Publication of unethical research studies: the importance of informed consent Ann
Thorac Surg 2003; 75:325-328

14
Wager, E. Fiack, S. Graf, C. Robinson, A. and I. Rowlands Science journal editors’ views on
publication ethics: results of an international survey J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 348-353
 15

human experimentation.”15 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

(ICMJE) has adopted the Declaration of Helsinki in its “Uniform Requirement for

Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.”16 This body has suggested that a

statement should accompany human research reports that indicate, “whether the

procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible

committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration.” 17 The Council

of Science Editors has a more rigid view “Editors can and should play their part in

upholding ethical standards by refusing to publish reports of work that violates human

rights even if the work seems scientifically valid and important” 18 Sade refers to a report

issued in 1998 by the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical

Association which concluded “If ethically tainted data that have been validated by

rigorous scientific analysis are the only data of that nature available, and such data are

necessary in order to save lives, then the utilization of such data by physicians and

editors may be appropriate.”19 The CEJA Report backs this view when it states the option

of publishing tainted material becomes morally compelling when data from unethical

experiments are the only source of life-saving information. This decision to publish

should be on the proviso that an explanation is provided as to the unethical element of

the experiment from which the data was generated and a condemnation of the unethical

nature of the experimental process.

15
Iverson C, American Medical Association Manual of Style: a guide for authors and editors. 9 th
ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins: 1998: 140-142

16
CEJA Report 5 – A- 98 Information from Unethical Experiments

17
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts
submitted to biomedical journals. October 2001. See www.icmje.org accessed August 5, 2010

18
Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Biology Editors. Lack of informed consent and
institutional review board approval. In: Ethics and policy in scientific publication. Bethesda, MD:
Council of Biology Editors, 1990:97-100

19
19 From Council on Ethical, and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association. Information from
unethical experiments. Report 89, AMA, Chicago, 1998. Available from
www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/5494 Accessed August 5 2010
 16

Conclusion

In answering the question under review it is apparent that where a life can be saved by

the use of tainted data (sourced by unethical means) and there is no other data available,

a strong case exists for the data to be used and published with the proviso that the

unethical nature of the experiments is disclosed.

The question that challenges the medical community, governments and the public who

demand continual improvements in health and well being and expect regular discoveries

of new life saving technologies, is how to meet these demands and still adhere to the

highest standards of medical and scientific ethics. Time and money, both almost always

in short supply, are factors that place limitations on today’s research programs. The

scarcity of either or both can lead to shortcuts. History has revealed that human beings

are capable of the most heinous acts. This is evident in the actions of the Nazi doctors

during the Holocaust particularly as well as in the actions of medical scientists and

researchers in the Western world who carry out unethical medical experiments either in

the name of science or for some spurious motive like greed, fame or career improvement.

As long as the rapid rate of new and exciting scientific and medical developments and

discoveries continue there will be instances of unethical actions by both individuals and

corporations. While the saving of life is paramount, this being borne out by the survey

and literature, there must be implementation and enforcement of strict guidelines to

ensure that science remains not the master but the servant of our fate.

Bibliography
 17

Angell M. ‘Ethical Imperialism? Ethics in international collaborative clinical research’,

The New England Journal of Medicine, No. 319, 1988, pp. 1081-3.

Annas G.J. and Grodin, M.A., The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code: Human

Rights in Human Experimentation, New York, Oxford University Press, 1992,

Beauchamp T. L. and Walters, L. Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, Belmont, CA,

Thomson Wadsworth, 2003.

Bogod D. The Nazi Hypothermia Experiments: Forbidden Data? Journal of the

Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. 59 Issue 12 December

2004

Caplan AL. (ed.), When Medicine Went Mad: Bioethics and the Holocaust. Totowa,

New Jersey, Humana Press, 1992.

Cohen BC. ‘The Ethics of Using medical Data from Nazi Experiments’, 2004, Retrieved

28 April 2008 from Jewish Law Articles, available from

http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx

Freedman M H. Hoenig LJ. Spiro HM. and Orlans FB. Nazi Research: Too Evil to Cite

The Hasting Center Report, Vol. 15, No. 4. (August 1985) pp. 31-32

Katz J. “Ethics and Clinical Research” revisited: a tribute of Henry K. Beecher, The

Hastings Center Report, Sept-Oct 1993 v. 23 No. 5.

 18

Lurie P. and Wolfe SM. ‘Unethical trials of interventions to reduce perinatal

transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus in developing countries’, New

England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 337, No. 12, September 1997, pp.853-6.

Moe K. ‘Should the Nazi Research Data Be Cited?, The Hasting Centre Report, Vol. 14,

No. 6, December 1984, pp. 5.

Sade RM Publication of unethical research studies: the importance of informed consent.

Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 75:325-328

Vollmann J and Rolf Winau Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial: Informed consent in human

experimentation before the Nuremberg code BMJ 1996; 313:1445-1447

Wager E. Fiack S. Graf C. Robinson A. Rowlands I. Science journal editors’views on

publication ethics: results of an international survey. J Med Ethics 2009; 35: 348-353

Nazi Research – to use or

not to use?
Human experimentation by Germans during the Nazi regime has become notorious
owing to their barbarity. Unethical behaviour is just the first charge that could be levelled
against these acts. Most people turn away from these experiments and want nothing to
do with them. However it struck me that there is the possibility that not all the human
experimentation was bad science per se. There may have been some human
experimentation where the methodology was good, the end results reliable and possibly
useful. If this was the case, I wondered how researchers have viewed this data, and
what values, if any, are invested in the data. 

Thus started my quest on how researchers, historians, and philosophers have

approached the question of ethics around the question of reusing or publishing the Nazi
 19

research. I presumed that the results of the different experiments were seized by the
Allies; however I did not give much thought to what happened to the data since then.
Was all the data sealed in boxes, and then warehoused to be forgotten, a la Raiders of
the Lost Ark. 

I had a sense that much of the experimentation was junk science, unreliable and
therefore of no use to anyone. The brutal activities of Josef Mengele  in Auschwitz are
well known, especially his “work” with twins, such as attempting to change eye colour. It
is through these assumptions and mental images that most people view the Nazi
experiments. Looking at the photographs of the concentration camps, and reading the
writings of those who endured, such as Primo Levi, I thought “how could any good come
from abusing human beings.” This was a superficial thought, and probably the one we
are culturally programmed to have. Nazis were bad, all they did is bad, even their
”science.” 

Was this the full story? I thought that surely there was some reliable science out of all
the research conducted during the twelve years of the Nazi regime. All the research
could not have resulted in unreliable science. What value do we assign to the Nazi
research data? When crouched in ethical terms, how have researchers approached the
question of whether it is ethical to use the Nazi data? I decided that it would be an
interesting exercise to research the philosophy and history of the question “should we
use Nazi research data”. I want to explore and understand what arguments were used
during these debates. Were the ethical values of the data determined by the
methodology of their creation, or were the data stemming from a value-free environment
and therefore the  resulting data is also value-free? With these, and an open mind, I
open the door to research this topic.

The ethics of using

unethical research
(Part II of Fergal’s series on citing Nazi and other unethical research. Continued
from Part I.) 

Initially I thought that the ethical question of whether it is acceptable to cite or use Nazi
research data would be enough. However as I researched this topic and read more
about the ethics of using data from previous unethical research, I discovered that there
was a more pertinent and relevant question. What is ethical behaviour, or more
importantly what constitutes an ethical violation in human experimentation?

The ethic codes are limited to the behaviour of the researchers conducting human
experimentation., and do not address citing or using research which has been
improperly obtained by others. So ethical codes do not help us.

The Nazi research data ceased to be the main topic, and now became a framework to
hang the debate on. The line of inquiry was generalised, moving from an interesting
debate on a particular incident in history, to an ethical debate on the values, or lack of
 20

values, inherent in research data. Now it was a more meaningful and contemporary
query.

Ethics in research, particularly has received a lot of attention in the last forty years or so.
In that time a number of journals have been created which are solely dedicated to the
question of ethics in science, such as the Journal of Health Ethics, and the Journal of
Medical Ethics. Other medical journals including JAMA (Journal of the American Medical
Association) and the Lancet had also features robust debate on medical ethics. These
journals became the battle ground of the debate. 

Those against publication base their argument on either moral grounds, or that the
research is unreliable. Their demands range from unethical data being expunged from
textbooks and journals where possible on one side, to allowing citing only to educate the
readers about ethical issues. While those for publication argue to allow publication under
limited conditions, where publication would benefit the greater good with accompanying
comments on the ethical concerns.

However neither camp seriously address the elephant in the room. There is no
agreement on a standard for defining ethics. With the practice of researchers rejecting
ethical codes, interpreting the codes to their benefit, the issue of obtaining genuine
informed consent, and generally rationalising why their research does not contain ethical
violations, there is no universal accepted standard for ethics. So, while the groups
debate whether to cite unethical behaviour, there is no agreement of what is unethical
behaviour. Within the grey zone between behaviours which are obviously ethical, and
those which are obviously unethical, ethical values are based on the values and
motivations of the individuals concerned.

Researchers need to address this serious weakness in the ethical regime.