embryology, and comparative anatomy. Especially,
the field of Entwicklungsmechanik (experimental and
physiological embryology) had proved to be fertile
and innovative. However, the emergence of the new
dynamic discipline of genetics called for further
adaptation and ultimately led to a certain separation
of the subdisciplines of embryology and genetics. At
the same time, static concepts of morphology were
no longer felt to be adequate for modern anatomy.
New approaches included a move away from
‘‘cadaver anatomy’’ to an emphasis on functional
anatomy and to a holistic anatomical perception of
the human being (Rothmaler, 1991; Grundmann and
Aumu
¨ller,
1996). Hermann Braus was one of the first
anatomists who revised the teaching of anatomy by
emphasizing not the static morphology but the bio-
logical function and interplay of the parts of the body
(Schiebler, 1982). His handbook of anatomy moved
away from the categories of sets of anatomical sys-
tems to a concept that ordered the human body into
functional entities (Braus, 1921). Its publication was
continued by Curt Elze after Braus’ early death in
1924. Braus’ anatomy was the first in a series of
books and atlases of a dynamic anatomy that was
further developed by other anatomists, especially
with Alfred Benninghoff’s ‘‘Functional Anatomy.’’
Other new concepts included a holistic approach to
anatomy, as championed by Max Clara and Kurt
Alverdes, which focused on the coordinated interac-
tion of individual tissues and organs in the whole
body, orchestrated for example by hormones (Clara,
1940; Ku
¨
hnel, 1989; Rothmaler, 1991; Grundmann
and Aumu
¨
ller, 1996). In the area of anatomical
atlases, Eduard Pernkopf’s ‘‘Atlas of Topographical
Anatomy’’ (Pernkopf, 1943) was also a new develop-
ment. It showed the most detailed topographical an-
atomical plates to date reproduced with a new color
printing technique, images which even decades later
seek their equal in terms of accuracy (Williams,
1988).
Although the conceptual works on dynamic anat-
omy were in many ways innovative, it has to be
noted that much of the research published from
1933 to 1945 was still mostly morphological. Stieve’s
morphological work was in so far unusual, as it was
based on a dynamic theory and postulated changes
in the morphology of tissues depending on environ-
mental and psychological influences, a concept dis-
tinct from the static ones influenced by racial
hygiene (Schagen 2005; Winkelmann and Schagen,
2009). His studies were considered highly relevant
by many of his contemporaries, if not by his oppo-
nent Hermann Knaus (Marx, 2003; p 153–159; Win-
kelmann, 2008).
However, the introduction of decisive methodolog-
ical innovations in anatomy such as the technique of
intravital fluorescence microscopy invented by Phil-
ipp Ellinger and August Hirt became uncommon in
NS Germany. The expulsion or emigration of experi-
enced researchers such as Ellinger, and of young
and promising scientists like Ernst A. Scharrer, who
went on to develop the new discipline of neuroendoc-
rinology with his wife Bertha in the United States
(Bargmann, 1966), is one explanation for the stag-
nation in anatomical research in NS Germany. In
addition, German researchers became increasingly
isolated from their international peers due to the
political situation, and German anatomy was cut off
from important technological developments in histo-
chemistry and the whole new field of electron
microscopy until after the war, even though the lat-
ter had been initiated in Germany in the early 1930s
(Schiebler, 1982; Kater, 1989; p 239).
Another reason for the lack of development in
German anatomy from 1933 to 1945 may have been
that a group of anatomists was involved in research
in racial hygiene, a field that proved to be unproduc-
tive due to its pseudoscientific foundations. Lastly, it
has to be considered that during the war years,
many anatomists were on active military duty. The
colleagues remaining at the universities spent most
of their time teaching an ever-increasing number of
medical students and had to deal with the physical
destruction of their workplace through bombings in
the later war years, overall conditions that were not
conducive to work based on new ideas.
Ethics of Anatomy in NS Germany
The question arises why anatomists behaved the
way they did in the Third Reich, why they let their
colleagues go silently in 1933, why they taught racial
hygiene, why they used the multitude of bodies of
NS victims for dissection, why two of them were
involved in murder. The answer is simple: they
thought they were right. In relation to the bodies
provided by the government, they were following
along the lines of previously established longstand-
ing anatomical laws and traditions in Germany and
many other countries that were again reaffirmed by
the NS regime (Aumu
¨
ller, 1991; Hildebrandt, 2008).
In relation to racial hygiene, it was accepted scien-
tific knowledge in Germany at the time and informed
and justified NS ideology and policies. Racial hygiene
also served as the subtext for the dismissal of their
colleagues as well as murder of the ‘‘unfit.’’ If they
had doubts about NS policies, they remained mostly
silent (Grundmann and Aumu
¨
ller, 1996; Holubar,
2000). Many scientists did not believe themselves to
be competent in politics and felt responsible only for
the freedom of their science (Ku
¨
hnel, 1989).
Did these anatomists have no ethics? Yes, they
did. There were indeed strict ethical standards in NS
Germany (Ru
¨
tten, 1997), and students of medicine
studied the subject as part of their mandatory curric-
ulum. Generally, NS medical ideology despised
so-called science for science’s sake and promoted a
medicine that served the German people, the Volk
(Proctor, 2000; Hildebrandt, 2006). Thus every
action was ethical that ensured the health of the
German people as a whole, and such actions
included sterilization, so-called euthanasia, and
finally mass murder (Kro¨ner, 1996). Traditional med-
ical ethics, in which a doctor’s work was focused on
the individual patient’s benefit, became replaced by
a rationality, efficiency, and anti-individualism that
ran counter to all previously held values in patient–
doctor relationships (Kater, 1989). Not the individual
908 Hildebrandt
Comentarios a estos manuales