Brain research on Nazi "euthanasia" victims: Legal conflicts surrounding Scientology's instrumentalization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society's history against the Max Planck Society.

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Florian Schmaltz
{"title":"Brain research on Nazi \"euthanasia\" victims: Legal conflicts surrounding Scientology's instrumentalization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society's history against the Max Planck Society.","authors":"Florian Schmaltz","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.2019553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1985, historian Götz Aly published an article showing that the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, neuropathologist Julius Hallervorden (1882-1965), had acquired brains of Nazi \"euthanasia\" victims and brain specimens of at least 33 children gassed at the Brandenburg killing center on October 28, 1940, which were still kept by the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research. Aly criticized that the Max Planck Society had suppressed articles by journalist Hermann Brendel in the 1970s claiming that institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society had conducted brain research within the framework of \"euthanasia.\" New sources show that these articles, which were the subject of a lawsuit, were published in a newspaper called <i>Freiheit</i> run by the German branch of Scientology, of which Brendel was editor-in-chief. The articles were part of Scientology's antipsychiatry campaign. They mixed historical facts about racial hygiene and \"euthanasia\" in Nazi Germany with ludicrous and unfounded accusations alleging that violent, racist, and dehumanizing research methods typical in Nazi research were still carried out at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. The legal conflict between the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and Scientology about the role of brain researchers in the Nazi era is analyzed here through combining perspectives from the history of neuroscience and socio-legal history. In contrast to trials of Nazi war crimes against \"euthanasia\" perpetrators, the civil law case of the MPG against Scientology from 1972 until 1975 instead concerned the instrumentalization of the Nazi past of psychiatry and brain research for ideological and commercial motives. The Scientology case caused social and legal ripples, and its after effects extended to 1986, when the MPG considered taking legal steps against Aly's publication.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"240-264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.2019553","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In 1985, historian Götz Aly published an article showing that the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, neuropathologist Julius Hallervorden (1882-1965), had acquired brains of Nazi "euthanasia" victims and brain specimens of at least 33 children gassed at the Brandenburg killing center on October 28, 1940, which were still kept by the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research. Aly criticized that the Max Planck Society had suppressed articles by journalist Hermann Brendel in the 1970s claiming that institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society had conducted brain research within the framework of "euthanasia." New sources show that these articles, which were the subject of a lawsuit, were published in a newspaper called Freiheit run by the German branch of Scientology, of which Brendel was editor-in-chief. The articles were part of Scientology's antipsychiatry campaign. They mixed historical facts about racial hygiene and "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany with ludicrous and unfounded accusations alleging that violent, racist, and dehumanizing research methods typical in Nazi research were still carried out at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. The legal conflict between the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and Scientology about the role of brain researchers in the Nazi era is analyzed here through combining perspectives from the history of neuroscience and socio-legal history. In contrast to trials of Nazi war crimes against "euthanasia" perpetrators, the civil law case of the MPG against Scientology from 1972 until 1975 instead concerned the instrumentalization of the Nazi past of psychiatry and brain research for ideological and commercial motives. The Scientology case caused social and legal ripples, and its after effects extended to 1986, when the MPG considered taking legal steps against Aly's publication.

纳粹“安乐死”受害者的大脑研究:围绕山达基将威廉皇帝学会的历史工具化与马克斯·普朗克学会的法律冲突。
1985年,历史学家Götz Aly发表了一篇文章,指出威廉皇帝脑研究所所长、神经病理学家Julius Hallervorden(1882-1965)获得了纳粹“安乐死”受害者的大脑,以及1940年10月28日在勃兰登堡屠杀中心被毒气毒死的至少33名儿童的大脑样本,这些样本至今仍保存在马克斯·普朗克脑研究所。阿利批评马克斯·普朗克学会在20世纪70年代压制了记者赫尔曼·布伦德尔的文章,这些文章声称凯撒·威廉学会的研究所在“安乐死”的框架内进行了大脑研究。新的消息来源显示,这些被起诉的文章发表在一份名为《Freiheit》的报纸上,该报纸由山达基德国分支经营,布伦德尔担任主编。这些文章是山达基反精神病学运动的一部分。他们将纳粹德国的种族卫生和“安乐死”的历史事实与荒谬而毫无根据的指控混合在一起,指控马克斯普朗克精神病学研究所仍在使用纳粹研究中典型的暴力、种族主义和非人性化的研究方法。马克思-普朗克协会(MPG)与山达基关于纳粹时期大脑研究人员角色的法律冲突,本文通过结合神经科学史和社会法律史的视角进行分析。与纳粹对“安乐死”罪犯的战争罪审判相反,MPG在1972年至1975年间对山达基的民事法律案件涉及的是纳粹过去的精神病学和大脑研究的工具化,以实现意识形态和商业动机。山达基案引起了社会和法律上的涟漪,其影响一直延续到1986年,当时MPG考虑对阿里的出版采取法律措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信