1947-07-19, #13: Doctors' Trial (Gerhard Rose's personal statement)

THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Rose.

DEFENDANT ROSE: Mr. President, may it please the Tribunal, the scientists who are among the defendants in this trial are confronted with a principal difficulty, the fact that purely scientific questions have been made political, ideological questions by the Prosecution. In the opening speech by the Chief of Counsel, General Taylor, the political and ideological nature of the indictment has been expressed as clearly as possible. Subject of the personal charges against myself is my attitude toward experiments on human beings ordered by the State and carried out by other German scientists in the field of typhus and malaria. Works of that nature have nothing to do with politics or with ideology, but they serve the good of humanity, and the same necessities can be seen independently of any political ideology everywhere where the same dangers of epidemics have to be combated. Just as in the case of malaria experiments malaria research has to make experiments with human beings, in the same way malaria scientists of various nations had to carry out experiments on human beings. Just as Klaus Schilling, with his own initiative, but with the approval of competent authorities of the State, was compelled to undertake human experiments, before and after him malaria researchers of various nationalities were compelled to make human experiments. Just as Haagen, out of his own initiative and with the approval of the competent State authorities, tested the value of a new, living typhus vaccine, before him that was done in the course of fighting plague by this great co-patriot, Richard B. Strong, when he experimented on natives of the Philippines, who were not American citizens, and when he did so with the approval of your Government. Just as Dr. Ding, on the instruction of the highest and decisive authorities of the German civilian health administration, tested the value of the typhus vaccine on humans in times of greatest typhus danger.

Others have done so before him in less pressing emergencies, in part upon the instruction of their governments. From the witness stand I testified about the actual role which I played in regard to the charges of human experiments with malaria and typhus. And I have explained from the witness stand the legal evaluation of my actions, and they have been submitted to you by my Defense Counsel Dr. Fritz. I need not add anything to it. But my attitude towards the experiments on human beings in medical research, as a matter of principle, I stated probably not only in this Courtroom, but also when the National Socialist German Government was at the height of its limitless power. At that time I was cut short by a man, Professor Schreiber, who about a year ago in this very Courtroom, claimed to be a defender of medical ethics. The fact is undoubted that human experiments, which were exactly the same as those, the participation in which I am unjustly charged with, have been carried out in other countries, above all, in the United States which has indicted me. That has led the Prosecution to place to proper point of its charges upon the outside conditions of the persons put at the disposal for experiments. In that connection the question of fact whether they were voluntary was put in the foreground. I shall not discuss the question as to what extent the doctor who is charged with the experiments is responsible for these external, formal questions, at least a doctor who was so far removed from the experiments themselves as I was. But in connection with the principal question of subjects' being volunteers, I have to make a few statements. A trial of this kind presents probably the most unsuitable atmosphere to discuss questions of medical ethics. But since these questions have been raised here, they have to be answered. Everyone who, as a scientist, has an insight into the history of the dangerous medical experiments, knows with certainty the following fact. Aside from the self-experiments of doctors, which represent a very small minority of such experiments, the extent to which subjects are volunteers is often deceptive. At the very best they amount to self-deceit on the part of the physician who conducts the experiment, but very frequently to a mis-leading of the public.

In the majority of such cases, if we ethically examine facts, we find an exploitation of the ignorance, of the economic distress or another emergency on the part of experimental subjects. I may only refer to the example which was presented to the Tribunal by Mr. Ivy when he presented the forms for American malaria experiments.

You yourselves, gentlemen of the Tribunal, are in a position to examine whether, on the basis of the information contained in these forms, individuals of an average education of an inmate of a prison can form a sufficiently clear opinion of the risks of an experiment made with pernicious malaria. These facts will be confirmed by any sincere and decent scientist in a personal conversation, though he would not like to make such a statement in public. That I myself am, on principle, an opponent of the idea of dangerous experiments on human beings is known to you gentlemen of the Tribunal and proved by others than myself.

The state, however, or any human community which, in the interest of the well being of the entire community, did not want to forego the experiments on human beings, does only base itself on ethical principles as long as it assumes the full responsibility which arises therefrom. And if it imposes sacrifices on enemies of society to stone for their crimes and does not cover behind the method of a make believe principle of voluntary submission which imposes the risk of the experiment on the experimental subjects who are not in a position to foresee the consequences.

The prosecutor in his plea criticized the submission of affidavits during the presentation of evidence on the part of the defense. The difficulties which exist for a defendant in prison in Germany of today to acquire other documents are almost prohibitive. In order to give an example, when the malaria experiments of Schilling's were discussed, the prosecution, among other material, submitted to the Tribunal an excerpt from the well known Dachau sentence; concerning the facts stated — the statements contained therein about the number of victims in these experiments, I have stated here in the witness box that I rather sit there as a defendant than to put my signature on the opinion which would confirm these statements. How right I was in making that statement can be seen from a letter by Professor Allenby of the University of London which unfortunately, has been received only now by my defense counsel, in which he termed the statement that 300 experimental subjects had died, a grotesque untruth.

My defense counsel in his final plea has quoted the passage of that letter. The prosecution at that time when the excerpt of the Dachau sentence was submitted, promised that the entire files of the Dachau trial would be put at our disposal. Unfortunately, all my efforts to gain an insight in these files until this moment have been in vain.

When Under-Secretary Conti during the war was toying with the idea to commission Professor Schilling, who was at that time in Italy, with malaria research in German, I, at that time, Chief of the Tropical Medical Institute, Department of the Robert Koch Institute, was assigned by the Reich Ministry of the Interior at first to give an opinion. In this opinion, for reasons which I have explained in the witness box, I rejected Schilling's plan. Had one followed my advice, the experiments by Schilling in Dachau would never have taken place. In the course of these proceedings I made all efforts to come into the possession of that opinion but in this case also I was unsuccessful, although that opinion in two copies is in the hands of the military Government, possibly even in this building.

Also, in vain, I attempted to get the file note, so important for my defense, which I dictated to the witness Brock about my conferences with Under-Secretary Conti and President Gildemeister, after I had gained knowledge about the conduct of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald, what little correspondence I had with Professor Haagen is apparently entirely in the hands of the prosecution. In spite of that, it has been submitted only in part to you. That fact offered an opportunity to the prosecution to interpret passages taken out of the context incorrectly. Unfortunately, I have no opportunity to force anyone to submit the missing documents which would clarify matters in my favor.

To evaluate the work of Haagen, and my defense counsel has pointed that out already, the statement of an unbiased expert would have been of decisive importance.

Therefore, I can only regret that the interrogation of the Frenchman Georges Blanc, which I suggested and who has the best knowledge in this field, did not take place, although he had volunteered to appear before this Tribunal as an expert.

Professor Lecrout, Director of the Institute Pastor in Paris, during this trial was frequently in Nurnberg. After an interview, the prosecution refrained from calling him as an expert witness to clarify some difficult questions resulting from the work of Haagen. I ask the High Tribunal to draw its conclusions from these facts and to assure that the lack of those pieces of evidence, which I cannot effect, should not result in a damage to my interests.

Prosecutor McHaney has explained in his plea that one still had to find that doctor among the defendants who would have subjected himself to such experiments as are covered by the indictment here. I do not feel that that concerns me, not only from the statement which I have made here before you but also from my case history which was available to the authorities of the prison before I was submitted to that indictment.

It can be seen that not only as an experimental subject I put myself at the disposal of experiments to evaluate vaccines but that frequently I gave myself infectious injections with cholera, typhus, malaria and hepatitis epidemica and that, in part, I am still suffering from the consequences.

Finally, the Prosecutor McHaney has asserted in his plea that all of those indicted here are guilty of murder, and that includes me too. If the Tribunal was to look at the problem at hand from this point of view, I would regret to have said a single word in my defense. However, if you believe me that in all actions of mine which have been discussed here, I was only moved by sincere devotion to duty, then I put my fate with confidence into your hands.