Content warning: this article references genocide, human remains, and mental health conditions

Alexander Beer is a third-year BSc Archaeology student and Co-Deputy Editor-in-Chief of HEX. Alexander’s final year dissertation focuses on integrating Bayesian statistics and aDNA in the Anglo-Saxon period.

What are the ethical implications of analysing the DNA of historical figures, particularly of the magnitude of Hitler? 

When we look at any human remains, the most important criterion is any living relatives, of which Hitler had none. The UK laws regarding the use of human tissue are relatively lax, and even grandchildren do not have explicit veto power if certain conditions are met for excavations (e.g., landowner permission, archaeological necessity). Things are far stricter in the US, which causes a ton of debate about which legal standard should become the ethical standard. 

I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical to analyse the DNA of historical figures, but there needs to be a well-defined research objective. Publications surrounding this have not been peer-reviewed, so we have no indication yet that scholars across the field agree that there was one. We have so little tissue associated with Hitler that I would argue it was not wise or ethical to use some for this analysis without a defined objective. This same sort of destructive analysis with little research objective happened in the 1990s, when scientists drilled holes into all sorts of bones, fossils, and amber remains, ultimately for their research not to mean anything, and leaving us with artefacts and ecofacts in poor shape. 

I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical to analyse the DNA of historical figures, but there needs to be a well-defined research objective

How does this reflect on archaeology? Do projects like this contribute to the field of archaeology, or are they sensationalist in nature?

I am struggling to see a strong research objective here. The geneticist who conducted the main portion of the analysis, Dr Turi King, is very well respected and has worked on Richard III’s DNA. However, she explains her involvement in this project as being focused on scientific rigour rather than pure research.

Some archaeologists would argue that individual biohistories like this one do not advance our overall understanding of the past at all. Even if you don’t believe that, I struggle to find a purpose for this analysis. 

There were three main conclusions from what I understood: Hitler had no genetic Jewish ancestry, he had the genes for a possible condition, and he may have been at higher risk for certain mental health conditions. 

The connection to Jewish ancestry was always a fringe theory, and now that it has been “disproven”, do we really understand Hitler or his movement any better? I’d argue not. Additionally, while Judaism is not an evangelising convert-focused religion, there are Jewish converts that may not show up genetically, or our database of haplotypes and genetic markers associated with those of Jewish ancestry may be incomplete. Thus, the theory remains unproven and fringe, but it is not as effectively disproven as the documentary would have you believe.

As to the medical conditions, they say very little. Would we understand Caesar, Einstein, or Nelson Mandela more if we found a genetic condition? They did not say that Hitler had certain conditions, only that he may have been at higher risk for them. The prison records from his time after the Beer Hall Putsch offer a better idea of his medical conditions related to his sexual development than this analysis does. And to suggest that he was schizophrenic, autistic, or had ADHD from this is laughable. Behavioural specialists diagnose these conditions and heavily rely on cultural context (consider the differences in how they are expressed, diagnosed, and treated in different countries), so his genetics tell us little. No conclusion drawn from his DNA is even close to a diagnosis.

Multiple scholars, including those who focus on genetics, such as Dr Denise Syndercombe Court and Dr Sundhya Raman, as well as those who study behaviour and mental health, like Dr Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen, have agreed that these genetic conclusions are behaviourally useless.

What do you make of the findings about Hitler’s predisposition to specific mental health conditions? How can we endeavour to unearth findings like this, but without stigmatising particular conditions due to the potent historical associations we are dealing with? 

Hitler was a monster. This is a box we can comfortably place him in. But when we start putting him in a box bearing some kind of mental health condition, the lines between these boxes can become blurred. I have already seen people saying that Hitler did what he did because he bore these conditions, which is utterly false and harmful to everyone with a real diagnosis. We have no proof he had any conditions, and they are not related to fascism, genocide, or any of his other many evils. It’s quite interesting that all these genetic “revelations” align perfectly with the historical record. I would say that many of them are virtually inconclusive but can be shoehorned into boxes that historians have been developing for decades. 

Additionally, society already sadly has stigmas against people with these mental health conditions. Publications like this, along with the resulting clickbait headlines, will not help this cause. People may connect those who carry diagnoses for these conditions with Hitler, though no real connection exists.

I have already seen people saying that Hitler did what he did because he bore these conditions, which is utterly false and harmful to everyone with a real diagnosis

Is there anything to be made of carrying out investigations like this without the consent of the person involved or any of their living relatives? Is it the place of science to make these kinds of intrusions? 

I think this is absolutely the place of science and the scientific method, but one of the most essential parts of this is a well-designed research objective. When no living humans are affected, for the advancement of science, it is ethically sound to use human remains. This is the basis of aDNA research, but we need to find valid results from it. I fail to see a clear objective for this study, other than curiosity about Hitler’s DNA, which is not sufficient. Every dollar and minute spent on projects like this is a dollar and minute not spent on purposeful, well-designed research.

What has archaeology learned from this?

Archaeologically, almost nothing. Ethically, we need to be more careful. Culturally, we need to be aware of the significance and impact of our conclusions on real, living people.

Image: geralt via Pixabay