Things that donors know: Is there any scientific value to the experiments conducted by the Nazis in the concentration camps?

AA asks: Nazi scientists during the war were given access to perform experiments on human beings freed from any ethical or moral restrictions. Did they manage to achieve something? Is it possible to see some contribution to science in the things that have been done?

In the ranks of the SS there were indeed doctors who had access to the concentration camps and they did use it to conduct research. Apparently such a large laboratory that is free from any ethical limitation should produce a lot of scientific and medical knowledge, but apparently the performance of quality science required more than laboratory mice.

The most widely publicized "research" is of course that of Dr. Josef Mengele on the twins, but it is difficult to discern any research method in the abuse that Mengele organized: there is no research question that can be defined as scientific and there is no research logic in the experiments he conducted. But Mengele was not alone and other SS doctors carried out work that on the surface appears to be biological research. The studies in the concentration camps mostly concerned military medicine issues. Nazi doctors in the concentration camps oppressed and Ravensbruck conducted experiments on the effectiveness of various treatments for contaminated wounds. The experiment involved injuring the prisoners, deliberately contaminating the wound with tissues from purulent wounds and inserting shards of stone or glass to simulate a combat injury. One experimental group received antibiotics (a sulfa drug) and another received homeopathic treatment. In the experiment, a control group that did not receive any treatment was also included. The choice of homeopathy, which was already known as pseudo-science at the time, reflects the scientific quality of the experiment that cost the lives of about a third of its participants and did not leave a mark on medical science.

Those who wish to find an actual scientific experiment carried out under these conditions focus on Dr. Sigmund Rescher     (Sigmund Rascher). who carried out a study commissioned by the German Air Force. One project sought to learn about typical injuries of pilots abandoning the plane at high altitude or landing at sea. 200 prisoners were put into a special chamber with low air pressure that simulates the conditions at an altitude of about 20 km, 78 of them died from this exposure and the survivors were killed to examine the effect of exposure to the conditions prevailing at the top of the atmosphere on the brain. The subjects were divided into 4 groups: with and without oxygen supply and a slow (recumbent) or fast (free fall) pressure increase. The experimenter left a detailed description of the physical reaction to the lack of oxygen and post-mortem reports on the victims' bodies. The prisoners on whom the experiments were carried out were called Versuchperson ("research person") or VP for short in the laboratory reports. This is how, for example, an observation of a 37-year-old Jewish prisoner, in good medical condition, who was placed in a cell where atmospheric pressure conditions of 12 km altitude prevailed, is described: "After 4 minutes, the VP began breathing heavily and shaking his head. In the fifth minute, muscle contractions appeared between minute 6 and minute 10, the breathing rate increased and VP lost consciousness. Between the 11th minute and the 30th minute the breathing rate slowed down to 3 breaths per minute and then the breathing stopped completely. During this period of time, a yellowing of the skin and foaming at the mouth were observed.

Special attention was directed to the examination of blood vessel embolism (embolism) under low pressure conditions. And in Rescher's words "some of the VPs died during a continuous exposure experiment to high altitude, opening the skull underwater showed air embolisms in the blood vessels of the brain and in the ventricles... In 10 cases after partial recovery from conditions of slow descent and before regaining consciousness some VPs were put into the water until they died. The opening of the chest and abdominal cavity was performed under water. Significant blockages of air bubbles were found in the coronary arteries and blood vessels of the liver and intestine" 

Despite their origin, data from these experiments were used by air medicine personnel in the West after the war.

The most significant and controversial study by Rescher and his colleagues dealt with the body's response to cold conditions. A group of about 300 prisoners, some clothed and some naked, were placed in water baths at a temperature of 2-12°C for hours during which the researchers monitored the rate of decrease in body temperature and heart rate. 400 immersions were recorded so that some of the prisoners participated in more than one cooling experiment. 90 of the subjects died from hypothermia and the survivors were subjected to a study on body heating methods. In a subsequent study Rescher used about 60 prisoners of whom about 20 died. According to the reports provided by the researchers, immersion in water at a temperature of 5° leads to death within 40 to 60 minutes, while at 15° the subjects survived for up to 5 hours, those who were put in the water with their clothes on survived for at least 5 hours. According to the summary report, with a few exceptions, the body temperature at the moment of death was 26-27°C. The details of the experiments were revealed in the "Doctors' Trial" held in 1947 and the protocol is difficult to read. According to the testimony of a nurse who worked at the facility, two Soviet officers were put in the bath while naked and unusually remained alive and fully conscious even after two hours. During the third hour, one of them turned to his friend (who knew German) to ask Rescher to shoot him and his friend scolded him "Don't ask anything from the fascist dog" according to this testimony they parted ways and shook hands before losing consciousness a little later.

The findings of these studies were considered, at least according to some researchers, reliable. and were cited 45 times in scientific journals after the war. The importance of the data on the effect of cooling the body intensified when heart surgery techniques were developed under hypothermic conditions to prevent damage to the brain while the oxygen supply decreases. Those in favor of the reliability of the research findings point to 2 of Rescher's conclusions supported by independent observations and experiments: the linear (or almost linear) rate of body temperature decrease with exposure time and the phenomenon of continued cooling in the first minutes after leaving the cold conditions.

On the other hand, Prof. Robert Berger from Harvard University Medical School who examined the raw data and Rescher's reports from the hypothermia study claims that relying on these experiments is not only unethical but scientifically wrong. As early as 1949, it became clear that Scherer had falsified some of the results, probably to impress the organizers of the study. From a pure research perspective, the experiments were not properly planned, were carried out carelessly and the results sometimes contradict each other and do not support the conclusions drawn from them. For example, the planning does not take into account important variables such as age or nutritional status. It is not clear from the report how many of the subjects underwent the experiment more than once, and how many of them underwent it while conscious. There is no division of the results according to the temperature of the water in the bath and there is no clear criterion for the end of the experiment - body temperature or state of the subject. Collecting data on reheating after cooling is even more sloppy. Rescher compares 7 different heating methods without considering the body temperature of the victims at the beginning of the heating, their physical condition or the length of time between the removal from the bath and the start of the heating. In a trial held after the war, it became clear that some of the assistants in the experiment who were recruited from among the prisoners changed records in an attempt to save some of the victims. Rescher was not a cardiologist and the arrhythmias suffered by the subjects were described in non-professional terms that make it difficult to understand them. Thus, increased fibrillation, a well-known phenomenon in hypothermia, is not mentioned at all in the reports and the results of the post-mortem examinations contradict the updated knowledge about the damage to the heart with a drop in body temperature.  

How is it possible that researchers with unlimited experimental resources have obtained such poor results? One possibility is simply the lack of credibility of the researchers whose main goal was to advance their careers within the mechanisms of the Nazi regime. Rescher ended his life a few days before the liberation of the Dachau camp when he was executed by order of Himmler, the SS commander for embezzling funds, murdering one of his laboratory assistants and kidnapping children (who were presented as his children). But the fact that the research was carried out by psychopaths is not a complete answer: even a despicable person may have good research skills. It seems that a necessary condition for conducting research of scientific value is belonging to a scientific community committed to standards of planning, execution and data processing and inference. Perhaps the very formulation of the question about "limitations of ethics" reflects a fundamental mistake: ethics and transparency are not limitations but a necessary element in scientific research and in their absence the laboratory is nothing but another form of torture cellar.

More of the topic in Hayadan:

• A researcher from the University of Haifa: Many of the Nazi doctors believed that they were doing the right thing
• Holocaust Day: Einstein fought anti-Semitism against Eastern European Jews in Berlin
• Reflections - Medicine in the Holocaust - a view from 2013 / Shmuel Reiss
• How did we miss one of the most important lessons from the Holocaust?