Results of Death-Camp Experiments: Should They Be Used?

[kassy]

Nova Online - Results of Death-Camp Experiments: Should They Be Used?



<< Few today would disagree about denouncing the Nazi experimenters as barbaric and their experiments as little more than sadistic torture executed under the guise of science. As such, many feel that findings from those studies should never be published or used. However, some of the research resulted in data that potentially could save lives today. Nazi hypothermia studies, for instance, have been cited in the medical literature for decades, and recently several scientists have sought to use the data in their own work.

You will be asked the following question eight times: "Based on what you now know, do you think doctors and scientists should be able to use data from Nazi death-camp experiments?" Each time, you must answer Yes or No to that question, and each time you will get a different counterargument meant to challenge your decision. Before answering the question for the eighth and final time, you may elect to read all 14 counterarguments -- seven for and seven against using the data -- before making your final decision. At that point, you may choose Yes, No, or Undecided. >>



I am about half way through and I am still undecided, sickened and disturbed but still undecided.

If you wish share your thoughts, do so.
Don't read the article if you are easily disturbed.

 

[Ameesh]

the people who did the research should be tried for their crimes

but i think if we dont use the research the deaths were pointless, i say use the research,

 

[Jzero]

Very interesting read. I ended up answering "Yes" but I'm quite affected by the following:


<< It should be a lesson to the world that human dignity and human life are more important than any advance in science and medicine. >>

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Short answer is yes. The site is not set up to address that question though. It is to make you aware of the atrocities which occured. Notice there were no questions like "suppose the data led to a breakthrough which cured AIDS" or some such thing. The questions were crafted to make you feel bad about saying yes. They are of the form "What if <something bad>? I am not sure how I feel about the emotional manipulation involved.

 

[Jzero]

<< Short answer is yes. The site is not set up to address that question though. It is to make you aware of the atrocities which occured. Notice there were no questions like "suppose the data led to a breakthrough which cured AIDS" or some such thing. The questions were crafted to make you feel bad about saying yes. They are of the form "What if <something bad>? I am not sure how I feel about the emotional manipulation involved. >>


It also gives you a different counter-argument if you say yes or no.
Like if you answer "yes" the next question is usually something that appeals to your sense of humanity about not lending any approval to such an atrocity.
OTOH if you answer "no" the next question is usually something like "What if you knew that many survivors and descendants think the data SHOULD be used?"

I was particularly frustrated by the final question of "What if it was your own mother or father?" I see their point, but I think such an emotionally charged counter argument isn't really playing fair.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Glad they showed the other side of the coin. Didnt try that (shuda though). Still, I don't think the purpose had much to do with research.

 

[Legendary]

I agree with Ameesh...if they don't use the research then every single death was in vain...at least give the deaths purpose...but still find the Nazis and eradicate them one by one.

 

[Heisenberg]

I think it should be used. The human dignity point is a good one, but I believe using the data to save lives in the future adds dignity to those who were killed - it doesn't take away from it.

 

[geno]

I say make some good of such a horrific tragedy. Whether the intentions were good or bad (clearly bad in this case), knowledge is knowledge. We test medicines and cures for diseases on animals intentionally infected with a certain disease. Clearly the death of the animals isn't right, but we make good of it. Comparing lab animals to millions of human beings isn't entirely the best way to make my point, but I still say that if there's something to be learned from the experiments that were carried out - we should take advantage of what was learned to benefit us as a whole.

 

[ggavinmoss]

For a clear, balanced presentation of both sides, watch some Star Trek. (Voyager I think).

-geoff

 

[bizmark]

<< Finally, soaked with the blood of their victims, the experiments were morally tainted, which renders them scientifically invalid. >>



I don't see how anybody can make this claim. Science is no place for morality.

That said, I now make the following morality statements: Information is good. Unequivocally. Denying information is evil. Denying the results of these studies is evil. Questioning the results and making sure that they're valid is fine. But to knowingly reject information that we have is wrong.

The "good science" question is certainly valid. But then, how much "good science" was there in the 1930's? I don't think that the Nazis were doing these experiments purely out of the evilness of their hearts. There are much cheaper, quicker, and (to the mentally unsound) surely "more fun" ways of killing people than these experiments. They were trying to obtain information that would be useful to them. They weren't just doing all of this for the hell of it.



<< To use the Nazi data is obscene and sick. One can always rationalize that it would save human lives; the question should be asked, at what cost? >>



The cost has already been exacted. There's no way that we can bring these people back from the dead, or ease their suffering somehow.

 

[kassy]

After reading all the arguments offered for and against I answered yes.
------------------------------------
Hayabusarider - hmmm, I can't say I came away with feeling that.
Interesting perspective though, I will go through it again when the shock factor of its contents has worn off and see if I view it differently.
In the end I thought both sides offered valid points.
What did you mean by 'Still, I don't think the purpose had much to do with research'?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Kassy
I was looking at the site in context. There is the "directors story" link about making "The Holocost on Trial" for example. I think the research "survey" or whatever is a part of the whole to put aspects of the Holocost in perspectives not usually thought about. Now I believe this is a good thing, but renders the question of the "science" done biased. Now bias is in this context is simply perspective. To be biased against the Nazi experiments is a good thing. The survey did not have you weigh things on an intellectual level as far as the merits of the data, but concerned itself with human impact. Again I have nothing against that, but it makes it clear to me that the reason for the site was more than a simple question of science.

 

[kassy]

Hayabusarider - I see your point. (I think)
I must admit I didnt read the rest of the articles/site before going through the questions because I was attempting to look at the arguments offered using logic rather than heart strings.

 

[Electric Amish]

As long as it is sound scientific data I see nothing wrong with it.

At least the deaths of these people wouldn't be for naught.

amish

 

[XMan]

Many former Nazi scientists helped us develop spacecraft.

While what was done was horrid, putting what was learned to some use, hopefully for the good, is all right.

 

[Emma]

<< As long as it is sound scientific data I see nothing wrong with it.

At least the deaths of these people wouldn't be for naught.

amish >>