Is there any value to analyzing his DNA? The idea that evil is genetic is itself feeding into some Nazi ideas about eugenics that are deeply wrong.
"Does Hitler have a right to privacy?" and other big questions in research ethics.
Submitted 5 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/0dcea8d8-1e61-49ca-9e8a-34e827eec523.jpeg
Comments
frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
etherphon@lemmy.world 37 minutes ago
Is there any value to make 2 million Hitler documentaries? No, but they do it anyways.
roguetrick@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Maybe we want to clone Hitler but raise him to be antifa.
ordnance_qf_17_pounder@reddthat.com 4 hours ago
Reminds me of a classic AskReddit aneurysm post.
If Hitler was Hitler today, and Hitler cloning machine. You hold world hostage with Hitler Clone Hitler Unlimited Hitler. What hold hostage with exchange for Hitler Hitler?
MooseWinooski@lemmy.ca 4 hours ago
I’ll allow it.
TheFogan@programming.dev 4 hours ago
Yeah to me that’s the biggest objection… he’s long dead, he has no surviving family that wants good for him to my knowledge. So to me that’s kind of on the same level as, digging up mummies. The evil actions he commited in life don’t really come into play here, and agreed it’s really stupid idea to think that his behavior is genetic.
Kind of reminds me of when most of the nazi generals swore to have no kids to not carry on their DNA, except one, who said “No I won’t sign that pledge, that’s eugenics which is nazi ideology”.
DaedalousIlios@pawb.social 3 hours ago
I don’t think this is about “is evil genetic.” The first psragraph of the article states it’s about his underlying health conditions. Which I think is absolutely worth studying, if it means spotting the early warning signs and intervening before another person ends up like Hitler.
But then I remember the world we live in and realize it’s probably not at all going to end up like that. So who knows? But they’re definitely not going to find “the Evil Gene.”
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 hour ago
The “underlying health conditions” they mention are a possible predisposition for schizophrenia, autism, bipolar disorder, and kallman syndrome. Things that most certainly do not create hilters, and if it’s being argued by anyone that they may then it is indeed apologia for fascist ideology. The thing that actually does create hitlers.
I think that his genetics can significantly illuminate or inform historical events, but having it out there in our media environment just begs to have it abused and misconstrued by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
BananaTrifleViolin@piefed.world 2 hours ago
It's historically interesting to maybe understand who he was as a human being. He's often painted as a monster but he was a human, and is a warning to all of us what evil human's can achieve.
For example, they're revealed he had Kallmann Syndrome (which can cause a micropenis and undescended testes) - he may have essentially been essentially asexual which may explain some of his life choices and why he was so dedicated to politics and gaining power. They've also shown he had high genetic risks for psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, as well as ADHD, autism.
Sensationalist reporting aside, these findings do add something to our understanding of a historical figure who had massive influence on human history.
ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 hours ago
not really… identifying and/or ruling out genetic origins of diseases isn’t racism.
my moral objection to this is: we shouldn’t be scanning and storing hitler’s dna; that’s how you end up with Hitler clones.
rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works 2 hours ago
Does this neolithic prehuman have a right to privacy? If they can’t give consent, what does it say about this project?
einlander@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I find it curious that they talk about privacy for Hitler but don’t mention Henrietta Lacks who this very thing happened to. Her cell cultures are being used to this day.
Venat0r@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
that’s how you know the whole argument is a dog whistle…
chgxvjh@hexbear.net 1 hour ago
No but not because he deserves privacy but because some freaks would try to clone him.
4am@lemmy.zip 29 minutes ago
If he has any offspring or family, even those that disavowed what he was and did but couldn’t stop him, his DNA has privacy implications for them.
That’s why shit like 23andme is extra bad. All it takes is like one relative per couple branches and they could probably build a copy of anyone’s DNA.
Now there’s a database that psychos can use to “purification research”. But surely nothing will go wrong guys, that’s just science fiction.
huf@hexbear.net 13 minutes ago
meanwhile they’re reinventing phrenology again…
BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 hours ago
The results, which are now under peer review, are indeed fascinating.
It is the first time Hitler’s DNA has been identified, and over the course of four years, scientists were able to sequence it to see the genetic makeup of one of the world’s most horrific tyrants.
What is certain, experts say, is that Hitler did not have Jewish ancestry - a rumour that had been circulating since the 1920s.
Another key finding is that he had Kallmann syndrome, a genetic disorder that, among other things, can affect puberty and the development of sexual organs. In particular, it can lead to a micropenis and undescended testes - which, if you know the British war-time song, had been another rumour flying around about Hitler.
Kallmann syndrome can also affect the libido, which is particularly interesting, said historian and Potsdam University lecturer Dr Alex Kay, who is featured in the documentary.
“It tells us a lot about his private life - or more accurately, that he didn’t have a private life,” he explains.
Hi, yes, question from the back of the room here: why is Hitler’s right to privacy the main controversy and not the fact that this work in no way shape or form represents an advancement in scientific knowledge? What’s “fascinating” about findings that he “might have” had a micropenis or the possibilities that entails for his sex life? Why is this how supposedly intelligent people are choosing to spend their time?
ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 1 hour ago
Nazism is when no sex? Great study. Anything negative or positive they can find changes nothing, is pure bullshit.
BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 1 hour ago
I’m not really seeing any purpose other than trying to paint him as some sort of aberrant freak, and I don’t see any purpose in that beyond trying to absolve the greater social milieu (which included a great many Brits!) in what happened.
7bicycles@hexbear.net 3 hours ago
or his descendants
this is a stupid question even removed from the hitler conundrum. love to say “no, fuck off” my whole life until they can track down a twice removed cousin failson to say “he didn’t mean it like that” after I croak
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 4 hours ago
He’s been dead for 80 years, that’s plenty long enough for anyone’s feelings to not matter.
Valmond@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
USA: IP right is 100 years after the creators death.
So when did hitlers parents die?
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
US IP rights are only a good example of a bad example.
fonix232@fedia.io 3 hours ago
Also, it is internationally generally agreed upon that criminals forfeit their rights to personally identifying information, such as fingerprints and DNA evidence.
Given Hitler's regime has been internationally agreed to be war criminals and have committed crimes against humanity, even if Hitler himself chose the coward's way out to avoid being convicted for these crimes, I think we can all agree on him being responsible for these crimes thus is essentially convicted posthumous.
Therefore combining the two, Hitler was and is a criminal therefore privacy protection laws don't apply, therefore his DNA should be freely usable by the scientific community.
Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Did he get convicted or does the ICC or ICJ need to do a court process? If any state can just allege someone being a criminal to exhume and extract dna without judicial oversight we open a door quite wide for abuse
plinky@hexbear.net 3 hours ago
There have also been raised eyebrows at the very name of the documentary, especially the second part: Blueprint of a Dictator.
Prof King said it wasn’t a name she would have chosen, and historian Prof Thomas Weber, who is featured in the programme, told the BBC he was surprised at the title, given they had stressed there is “no dictator gene”.
“We should do whatever we can to understand past extremism,” Prof Weber believes.
did the dictator gene infect 12 million german army, ignoring volunteer corps in all of europe as well? smh, some twerp will clone hitler probably in not so distant future.
axont@hexbear.net 53 minutes ago
Did Hitler’s genes kill Rosa Luxemburg? Did Hitler’s evil chromosomes send German colonizers to Tanzania in 1884 when Hitler was negative five years old? Maybe the preconditions of fascism need more than a single person’s DNA but more research is required.
plinky@hexbear.net 53 minutes ago
nope, it’s skullshapes all the way down i’m afraid.
LeninsBeard@hexbear.net 3 hours ago
That Trotsky quote about a particle of Hitler being lodged in every disgruntled Petit Bourgeoisie except it’s an actual strand of DNA
booty@hexbear.net 2 hours ago
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
What a pointless question. There’s literally nothing we could hope to learn from examining his specific DNA.
This is like how some scientist stole Einstein’s brain to see what made him so smart and didn’t find anything. Pointless.
The fact that this is being used as an argument against right to privacy is an ad absurdum strawman.
AnarchoCummunist@hexbear.net 2 hours ago
Yes. It does. Fuck his privacy.
Someone asking that should suck on diese hoden.
nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Don’t worry, the Mormons did one better and posthumously baptized him (“baptism for the dead”) so he’s able to get into heaven if he accepts mormon Jesus. No need to wonder if he was evil!
(I’m joking about the last part but they really did do that)
Phineaz@feddit.org 5 hours ago
I think that’s an easy one: Hitler is dead and, as far as I know, never had any direct descendants or relatives that could object on valid reasons.
thessnake03@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Hitler’s (half?) nephew served in the US Navy during WW2. I don’t think William has any remaining kin though.
Corpsman Hitler, U.S. Navy? - Lyon Air Museum share.google/EyrJMOCp1ocHntkl7
Beacon@fedia.io 3 hours ago
A niece or nephew isn't a direct descendant
apotheotic@beehaw.org 3 hours ago
Why should doing experiments on ones bodily components be an opt-out situation?
Phineaz@feddit.org 1 hour ago
Whether it be an opt-out or -in situation is beyond the topic of this question, but neither are applicable here.
DarkCloud@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Yes, fascism negates the rights of the fascists. It has to in order to protect free society.
It’s call the Paradox of Tolerance, and is very difficult for centrist liberals to understand.
The faster you string fascists up, the better off society will be. The body? Who cares, do what you want with it.
FaceDeer@fedia.io 47 minutes ago
The way I've reconciled the Paradox of Tolerance for myself is to view tolerance as part of a social contract. The social contract demands that tolerance be extended to everyone who in turn accepts that social contract themselves. "Being tolerant" doesn't necessarily require that tolerance to be given out indiscriminately. Like how I wouldn't consider a vegan any less a vegan if they ended up having to kill something in self-defense, even if they had to kill it by biting chunks out of it.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 hours ago
There’s propaganda value to “Hitler was quasi-Trans” as same revisionist demonism as “Hitler was a socialist” to revive a (neo) naziism without the baggage of Hitler, that can better serve Zionist first Christofascism in erradicating Islam, humanist governance, and whatever “the woke” needs to mean.
Beyond privacy rights, is what is the usefulness of the messaging, and could that usefulness be more important to someone/agenda than the moral failures of completely fabricating it.
ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Most arguments for using Hitler’s DNA end up supporting the eugenicist trash Nazi scientists espoused. There is little practical use for it.
frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 4 hours ago
I know my institution wouldn't allow this without informed consent from himself pre-death or legally responsible family members. Plus you have to be able to withdraw consent at any time and we have to destroy all data, including sequencing analysis, upon request. Not sure how that affects published data but we'd have to strip it out of any data repositories the publications may point to as well.
BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 hours ago
I haven’t really read up on the topic since the early days of the human genome project - has there been any attempt to round up and remove all of the sequencing data obtained from indigenous people under dubious consent or disclosure conditions or is the intent of these policies more “going forward we’ll keep things above board”?
JoMiran@lemmy.ml 4 hours ago
Nice try, but I watched The Boys From Brazil. No Hitler DNA for you!
thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 3 hours ago
This article make a big stink about how mentioning that he had genes that showed “very high” scores for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and how we shouldn’t mention that because it might make people with these disorders feel more Hitlery. It also says he had similar genes for having a micropenis but doesn’t show the same concern for people with this affliction. Well, Lemmy, does this new information make you feel more Hitlery?
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 4 hours ago
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
I think everybody’s DNA should be open source…
CaptainBasculin@lemmy.bascul.in 4 hours ago
The DNA would probably fall in public domain before any significant research could be done with it.
zxqwas@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
What is the scientific value of it and why can’t those values be realised in a way that does not even raise ethical concerns?
The best argument for it was that eventually someone would do it and they may just as well do it rigorously.
ICCrawler@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Ethically, it may be questionable, personally, IDGAF.
_Nico198X_@europe.pub 2 hours ago
drolex@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
And additional question: even if it was technically feasible, was it really ethical to surgically implant Hitler’s cloned brained into the body of a silverback gorilla and make it fight against Tigerstalin?
state_electrician@discuss.tchncs.de 4 hours ago
Everybody’s so concerned with preserving Hitler’s brain. But when you put it into the body of a great white shark, ooh, suddenly you’ve gone too far.
Wilco@lemmy.zip 4 minutes ago
A great white shark with fricken laser beams!
user224@lemmy.sdf.org 3 hours ago
I see what you did here.
drolex@sopuli.xyz 4 hours ago
Ah! I knew it was not a novel approach. Thanks Pr. Farnsworth, you crazy sciency trailblazer.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 hours ago
But in the 80s, we transplanted Donald Trump’s brain into a house cat addicted to cocaine.
Image
Image
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
It would be to more unethical to not do that.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 3 hours ago
Stalin disappeared thousands of people. Tiger Stalin “disappeared” a few, but there was no hiding it, the pile of intestines and bones was a dead giveaway.