If you also like William Blake’s poetry you might be interested in more quotes that have a true scientific background.
If you also like William Blake’s poetry you might be interested in more quotes that have a true scientific background.
Will you state your full name?
Will you repeat this oath after me?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
You may sit down.
I have heard this sentence now eight times – on eight new CDs from the Nuremberg trials with original material by the American Record Group 238 “Die NS-Führung im Verhör” documented by Ulrich Lampen with an introduction by Peter Steinbach. The introductory remarks are well balanced, the sound quality excellent, translation and dubbing artists outstanding, but there seems to be no documentation in the CD box in particular for CD 7, the interrogation of Prof. Dr. med. Karl Gebhard.
I am giving therefore some links here – as otherwise you will not really understand what this man did. None of the other interviews recorded such an aggressive, rude and loud tone – a big-headed, omnipotent medical professor that still believes that winning of the war would have enobled his medical research.
www.shoa.de, the largest German portal on the Holocaust has an article about Herta Oberheuser that contains some information about Gebhard; more at German Wikipedia but the most detailed account may be found in Klee, Auschwitz pp 152. Gebhard was one of the few German physicians that were hanged after the war.
Born in 1897, he studied as Mengele here in Munich, habilitated 1935 as a scholar of Sauerbruch and became associate professor in Berlin. As of 1937, he held a chair of orthopedic surgery, became head physician at the sanatorium (Heilanstalt) Hohenlychen and “Oberster Kliniker beim Reichsarzt SS”. Ravensbrück was only a few kilometer from Hohenlychen. Klee has all the terrible details of his medical research: artificial infection with Clostridium, wood and glass implantation into the lower legs, explantation of limbs, trepanation with artifical brain injuries, phosphor burning of the perineum as punishment, consecutive murdering of patients with evipan or by shooting. Gebhard was medical attendant of Heinrich Himmler and president of the German Red Cross (sic!)
The protocols are available as microfilms. I am currently checking with the editors if they can be copied to PDF format.
Götz Aly and Karl Heinz Roth show in their book that the German Nazi system would not have worked without counting people, identification, classification, separation and elimination. It is a detailed historical account on technical details of coding and storing information about the population, the census of 1933 and 1939, the infamy of telling people that their data of Jewish ancestry in a separate questionnaire would be treated anonymously (p 93). The 1939 census required a “supplemental card” in addition to the household card (p 32)
This card developed by security service, police as well as statistical office was used by the authorities to ask for individual descend (“Was one of you grandparent Jew?”) as well as for the education in commission of the military services. The card should be given back in a separate, closed envelope. The envelope – together with the official affirmation – should delude potential victims and let them believe by the fictitious anonymity to make absolutely true information which was indeed facilitated and guaranteed.
The supplemental cards were then used to build the “Reichskartei der Juden und jüdischen Mischlingen” – the basis of the Holocaust. The Holocaust started with a knitting needle – the tool to lift the punched supplemental cards.
As mentioned earlier, I think there is a particular obligation with population based studies in Germany where it took 40 years to build epidemiology from scratch again. This is a must-read book for every epidemiologist.
A few hours before being executed, Eichmann was asked by Mr. Ofer, the director of the prison (in my translation)
“What should the Jews have done? How could they have resisted according to your opinion? Eichmann: Disappear, disappear. Our most sensitive point, that they would disappear before being registered and concentrated. Our command units were too weak and even when the police of the respective countries supported us with all their strength, [the Jewish] had a at least a chance of 50 : 50. A mass escape would have been a disaster for us.
Doing science and seeking truth may be occasionally unkind to others. Watching a beautiful movie (“Babette’s Feast“, Oscar 1988) I was deeply moved by the speech of the officer Lorens Löwenhjelm about “Barmherzigkeit und Wahrheit” or “mercy and truth” – it goes back to
Ps 85:10 (KJ) Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Also Martin Luther found that remarkable as well as Wolfgang Huber. Yea, yea.
BBC reports about celebrities speaking on scientific issues – and comments by experts. I would like another BBC news feature about scientists speaking on scientific issues from different disciplines, for example famous molecular biologists about ethics.
No, this is not a post about another case of scientific misconduct (the sigma factor in transcription initiation published in Cell last October) but about Six Sigma, a process developed at Motorola in 1986 for measuring defects and improving quality of the production process (Motorola owns the trademark for Six Sigma). Read more at the excellent Wikipedia article – applying these principles could also help scientific projects, yea, yea.
The 3 Rs of regulating animal research are Refinement (to minimize suffering), Reduction and Replacement (to minimize the number of animals used). A Nature news feature now has a critical appraisal of current knockout projects where each of the 25,000 genes will be knocked out in the next future. Although current technology represent an advantage over recent undirected mutagenesis projects
… the number of mice needed to establish a line stretches from 50 to several 100. On top of this, another couple of 100 animals are needed for basic analysis of genetic make-up and phenotype…
Many genes cannot be knocked out – some knockouts may even be lethal.
We are also not so much interested in permanent destruction of genes in all tissues but in conditional and temporal shutdown of gene function.
And many researchers are not so much interested in the current 129 background than in BL6 (at least in immunology and allergology).
Finally (in human genetics) we are not dealing with knockouts but with multiple genomic variants of a gene. The question therefore is
Is the spirit of the knockout projects in line with [3R] principle[s]?
although I acknowledge that these industrial projects may generate many “nice to know” facts.
It was an interesting experiment that started on June, 1 in the Nature office: a first trial of of open peer review. Of the 10,000 papers received every year, 6,000 are immediately rejected and eventually 700 published after peer review. The result of the trial, however, is disappointing:
We sent out a total of 1,369 papers for review during the trial period. The authors of 71 (or 5%) of these agreed to their papers being displayed for open comment. Of the displayed papers, 33 received no comments, while 38 (54%) received a total of 92 technical comments.
The trial provoked some web traffic with approx. 800 page views/day. Welcome back to the altruism thread, the discussion may be followed at their blog, yea, yea.
if you want to see Crison and me in the same stadium, you must bid him slacken his speed to mine, for I cannot run quickly, and he can run slowly.
(from Platons Protagoras dialogue English|German).
firstmonday has a wonderful paper “More, Faster, Better: Governance in an Age of Overload, Busyness, and Speed” basically arguing that the vast sources of information has a rather paradoxical effect: the abundance of information rather disconnects and distances us from ourselves and the world around us.
Immersed in a sea of media, information sources, technologies and devices, many of us are now becoming aware of the downside — some would say the dark side — of these powerful new modes of communicating and acting.
The mere number of papers being published even in my most genuine area of interest is impossible to monitor at the end of 2006 – bioscience looses more and more scientia. Although papers still have a “discussion” section, there is no more discussion as references are getting more and more eclectic.
The Levy paper in firstmonday is a “must read” – in particular the chapter on
Vannevar Bush, an American born in 1890, was trained as an electrical engineer and for the first part of his career worked as a professor and an administrator at MIT…. Bush was famous enough to appear on the cover of Time in April of 1944. Yet today he is best remembered not for his technical work or his contribution to winning the war, but for an article he published in the Atlantic Monthly in July, 1945, titled “As We May Thinkâ€
and what he says about two kinds of thought: routine or repetitive or logical thinking along an accepted groove – literature scan, arithmetic operations all that technical stuff that can be automated: In contrast there is mature, creative thought, deep, original thinking, reasoning – without any mechanical substitute. Levy makes the point that
Certainly the easy availability of information and the increasing pace of life can at times be empowering and even exhilarating, but too much stimulation can lead to numbing, a loss of focus, and withdrawal: it can dumb down, enervate and even stupefy.
the information overload (with less reliable, often questionable) information leads to a deprivation of mature thinking that severely affects now the academic world
Yet today’s universities — their faculty, students, and staff — are increasingly caught up in the current cultural frenzy; academics are now busier and more overloaded than ever before. The pressure on faculty to obtain outside funding is intense and increasing as the pool of available funds shrinks; time spent searching for potential funding sources, writing grant proposals, and shepherding them through intricate bureaucratic procedures is simply added on to the other expectations of the job…. increased student expectations that instructors should and will be available for consultation at all hours of the day and night, weekends included. E–mail has also made professors that much more reachable by the general public, the press, and academics at other institutions…
What can be done? Prescreening of relevant science by (institutionalised) editors or (anarchic) blogs? And by which criteria?
Rolf Zinkernagel in a commentary in Nature Immunology explains that today almost everything can be measured – and a nearly uncontrollable complexity often paired with weak detection methods renders experiments almost unrepeatable. His recommendations are
Most if not all experiments have limitations. Therefore researchers must think and argue and do experiments contrary to published results and against biases.
Nearly all studies need some funding; funding is controlled by peer review; peer review usually prohibits these experiments. Yea, yea.
Last week I attended a meeting in Neuherberg about the future of science and ethics in medicine and biology. Prof. Jürgen Mittelstraß (Konstanz) gave the introductory lecture, Prof. Herwig Hulpke, Prof. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf and Prof. Klaus Peter participated in the discussion moderated by Fraua Ferlemann (BR). The lecture by Prof. Mittelstraß was remarkable, I am offering here a 60 MINUTE PODCAST [in German only] while the manuscript will follow later in January 2007. Please let me know if you want the full audio records of the 2 hour meeting.
Prof. Mittelstraß (left) and Prof. Graf (right) during the discussion
There have been always attempts to make humans better – an idea that attracted people nearly every century. Ovid created Galatea from a statue, Goethe’s homunculus originated from a test tube, Mary Shelly created her monster from corpses, Bulgakows proletarian derived from a dog and Sloterdijks Menschenzüchtung by a fancy idea. There is only a minor difference at the end of 2006 – technical possibilities of genetic testing and genetic engineering are much higher developed. Yea, yea.
As a frequent traveller I like podcasts. Here is a quick link to Open culture that have a huge university podcast collection including many foreign language selections (Boston College, Bowdoin College, Collège de France, Duke University Law School, Harvard University, Haverford College – Classic Texts, Johns Hopkins, Northwestern University, Ohio State, Princeton University, Stanford University, Swathmore College, University of California (the best collection), The University of Chicago, The University of Glasgow, The University of Pennsylvania, The University of Virginia, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Vanderbilt University, Yale University and Ecole normale supérieure). If you don´t like proprietary formats you need to find the good and the bad apples.
On my way to work I am crossing every morning in Dachau East the former Nazi concentration camp/Konzentrationslager (KL). Its a monument of inhumanity and the deepest point in the history of “science”. A large number of prisoners were abused by SS doctors for medical experiments; an unknown number of prisoners suffered agonizing deaths in the course of atmospheric pressure, hypothermia, malaria and other experiments.
Having a longstanding interest in history (and even published on the 50th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials) I have now been very interested in a new book by Sigfried Bär, one of the outstanding German science writers “Der Untergang des Hauses Rascher”, a history of the life of Dr. Sigmund Rascher, anthroposophic scholar, medical student, DFG-scholar, minion of of Heinrich Himmlers, air pressure and hypothermia researcher at KL Dachau and finally prisoner who died by being shot in the neck.
Dr. Bär spent several years researching the life of this mass murderer. He contacted relatives of Rascher, looked at family photos, talked to people who knew Rascher and went to archives. This is a unique document showing the avidity of a researcher for recognition by scientific colleagues. Other books from my own library that I recommend:
Colleagues, funding agencies and journals – all want word attachments.
Richard Stallman has a comment on that. Yea, yea.