I also want to read what I have written on page 13.
However, Neff's testimony does show that the selection of the experimental subjects was carried out in two different ways: For the "dangerous experiments" Rascher ordered the subjects through the local headquarters, and they were brought by the SS; they were therefore people condemned to death (page 663); for the "serial experiments" on the other hand, and "for most of the Other experiments which took place that's what the witness said, the people were brought to the experimental station from the blocks, that is, from the camp", (page 657) by the block leaders, etc. (page 663). These "serial experiments" were obviously the experiments approved by Ruff and Neff expressly establishes that "volunteers reported for these experiments" (pages 657/712)! He even gives the reasons why the prisoners volunteered for these: because Rascher, and Himmler too, had promised various inmates "that, if they participated in the experiments, they would be given a better labor assignment" (page 657) and even as Himmler promised that they would be discharged (page 712). Such volunteers reported to Rascher on their own initiative (according to the witness) as he went through the camp, without any special efforts having been necessary to find volunteers (witness Neff, page 657).
There can be no doubt that these volunteers, estimated by Neff to be about 10, are identical with the 10 "official experimental subjects" or "exhibition patients" mentioned already by the witness Vieweg, and it is noteworthy that Dr. Ruff, too, in his testimony always told of 10 or 12, or at the most 15 persons from the very beginning, of course (he did not count them himself) who were regularly called in for the high altitude experiments and who he saw himself, when, a single time, he was present for observation and checking at the experiments in Dachau; this number Dr. Ruff had mentioned at a time when Neff's and Vieweg's testimony was not avail able.
He therefore could not have anticipated that these witnesses would confirm his figure as correct.
I have further stated on pages 15 and 16, where I first mention the numerous contradictions in the testimony of Neff, on page 15, under #3, I continue:
There can be no doubt that, if these statements by Neff were true, it would have been easy for the Office of the Public Prosecutor to produce numerous other witnesses, who, likewise, had been inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau, who had perhaps experienced these experiments themselves, or who had spoken to subjects of these experiments or had even observed the experiments. However, not a single outsider, not a single incontestable witness, has been produced although half a year has elapsed since the days when, here in the courtroom, one could not fail to realize to what an unreliable and untrustworthy class persons of the caliber of Vieweg and Neff belong. This fact very strongly indicates that obviously no other witnesses are available or could be made available who could confirm that the experimental subjects who were used in the Ruff-Romberg altitude tests were not volunteers.
Let the fact be mentioned here, for the sake of comparison, that in the case of the Gebhardt sulfonamide operations, for example, one-half dozen incriminating witnesses were brought from Poland and Russia and were interrogated here as witnesses. Why was not a single trustworthy witness produced from among the Dachau experimental subjects and placed in the witness box? Because no one could be found who could confirm the untrue allegations of a Vieweg and a Neff. On the other hand, during the trial a whole series of persons, who deserve a great deal more belief than Vieweg and Neff, affirmed with certainty that all the experimental subjects in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were volunteers and that from the very beginning an indispensable condition which was demanded and assured was that the subjects were voluntary.
Then, in this connection, Your Honors, on page 16 to 18 I have collected the testimony by a series of witnesses who have testified here regarding the subject of voluntary experimental subjects, Dr. Lutz, Hielscher, Hippke, and General Wolff, and I have then, on page 18, given 11164.
the result of all these testimonies by witnesses and have collected it.
If one takes all these statements by witnesses together, which certify that the experimental subjects in the Dachau high altitude experiments of Dr. Ruff and Romberg were volunteers, it cannot be doubted that the concordant statements by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Weltz are absolutely true; these are defendants, it is true, but from all sides testimony is given of their irreproachable professional conception. Although they are now sitting in the dock, their precise and clear statements deserve far more belief than the changing and contradictory statements of a habitual criminal, who has committed a downright perjury in this court, or of a murderer, who actually belongs far more in this dock.
I then come to page 19, to the results under #5:
There can be no doubt that the experimental subjects for the Dachau high altitude experiments were volunteers, at least as far as the experiments authorized by Ruff are concerned. Whether volunteers reported for the extra-experiments continued by Dr. Rascher, or whether the prisoners were forced into these experiments by Dr. Rascher, does not need to be examined, because Ruff and Romberg did not participate in these experiments in any way.
But even if any doubt as to their having volunteered were possible, it cannot be denied that Ruff and Romberg were firmly convinced that all their experimental subjects actually were volunteers; this was stipulated from the very beginning and in all discussions of Dr. Ruff with Hippke, Weltz, and the representative of the SS; therefore Ruff could always be convinced that only volunteers were actually concerned.
Dr. Ruff's conviction was strengthened through personal conversation with various prisoners on that day on which he himself went to Dachau to control the execution of the experiments and to ascertain that everything was carried out in a completely orderly manner.
And finally, in this connection, it cannot be overlooked that Dr. Ruff, as he has stated under oath, confirmed by numerous affidavits in Document Book Ruff, never at any other time in his life worked with involuntary experimental subjects.
Just because he considered it as an indispensable provision for the success of the experiments that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that they themselves cooperate, Dr. Ruff never thought that the Dachau prisoners were not fully and completely in agreement with the experiments, especially since Romberg told him, during his first visit in Berlin, that all conditions for the experimental subjects were fulfilled and that they were, therefore, German voluntary and criminal experimental subjects.
In Chapter 3 of my written plea I have then stated my attitude toward the problem of prisoners as voluntary experimental subjects and I have witten about this on page 21 as follows:
The expert, Professor Dr. Leibbrandt, has held to his one-sided opinion also in this respect, and has advocated the theory that prisoners can never be regarded as volunteers. This opinion is doubtlessly false; in other times, the expert perhaps would not have supported it. For the administration of justice in other cases also accepts legally binding statements of prisoners and does not think of declaring them legally ineffective only for the reason that the prisoner in consequence of his imprisonment finds himself in an embarrassing situation and therefore not completely master of his own free will.
One surely is not mistaken in supposing that none of the defendants, even if he has even such great experience as a medical man, at that time thought of all the possibilities without exception which we have to consider now, where since many months we have to search for the legal basis of the whole problem of human experiments, and have to think of all eventualities. According to his sentiment, at that time, each physician and research man said to himself: If the experimental subject agrees to the experiment, everything is all right. For this always appeared to the physicians to be the highest principle: an experiment is legal if the experimental subject agrees to it, provided that the physician observes the necessary care when performing the experiment.
As proven here by this trial, there exists in no country a written law regulating the legal conditions of experiments on humans. On the other side, however, the human experiment is such a far-spread and often such an indispensable matter that one might speak of a conventional law, which generally and tacitly is accepted and acknowledged by the whole world. The defense of some of the defendants has demonstrated to the Tribunal in its document books the opinion of the whole world on this conventional law, in the most varying degrees, from the absolute harmless to the absolute deadly experiment, and has certainly therewith compiled valuable material which is suitable for forming the basis for a codification of this medical conventional law and to show safe future roads for the development of justice in this sphere. Lacking a written law, the physician and research man even today can only recognize the conventionally legal concept as a rule for his conduct as expressed in international medical literature. Experiments on which, time and time again, reports were made in this international literature without meeting any opposition do not constitute a crime in the medical conception. From nowhere a plaintiff arose from the side of the responsible professional organization or from that of the administration of justice to accuse the experiments described in the literature as being criminal. On the contrary, the authors of those reports regarding their human experiments gained general recognition and fame; they were awarded highest honors; they gained historical importance. And in spite of all this, is what they reported on supposed to have been a crime? Noi In view of the complete lack of written legal norms, the physician who generally knows only little about the law has to rely on, and refer to, the admissibility of what generally is recognized as admissible all over the world.
The defense is convinced that the Tribunal, when referring to the decision of this problem without being prejudicial, will first gain the understanding from the large number and multiplicity of experiments performed all over the world on healthy and sick persons, on prisoners and free people, on criminals and on the poor, even on children and mentally ill persons, how the medical profession in its international totality answers the question for the admissibility of human experiments not only theoretically but also by practical examples.
It is psychologically understandable that German research men today will have nothing to do, if possible, with human experiments and try to get away from them, or that they would like to describe them as inadmissible even if before 1933 they perhaps were of the opposite opinion. However, experiments performed 1905-1912 by a highly respected American in Asia for the fight against the plague, which made him famous all over the world, cannot and ought not to be labeled as criminal because a Blome is supposed to have performed the same experiments during the Hitler period (in fact, however, were not performed at all), and experiments for which, before 1933, a foreign research worker, the Englishman Ross, was awarded the Nobel prize for his malaria experiments, do not deserve to be condemned only because a German physician performed similar experiments during the Hitler regime. One should not say that experiments, because of different diseases or different drugs from those referred to in this trial, because of this difference had nothing to do with the counts of the indictment of the present trial, and that therefore they are of no importance as evidence. In the foreground there stands the basic question for the conditions under which such experiments are permissible; whether they refer to plague or typhus, to tuberculosis or jaundice is a secondary question which concerns more the medical expert than the jurist.
Decisive for this trial is the Question: Did the conditions under which experiments were performed by the defendants find their international recognition even for such experiments which were performed by foreign research workers with the approval of all civilized humanity?
If one wants to arrive at a just and satisfactory decision, one must disregard the fact that here German research workers are accused. On the contrary, one has to strive toward obtaining an international basis to represent the present international opinion on human experiments and which for decades, if not for centuries, will form the base for the permissibility of human experiments.
We, as jurists, can only render a service to the development of medical science and therewith to humanity if we endeavor to establish a doubtlessly clear view of today's international opinion on human experiments, if these experiments were performed by Germans or by foreigners.
When reading this international literature, however, there cannot be any doubt that the volunteering of the experimental subjects warrants in every case the legality of human experiments, and that, therefore, the more sentimental attitude of our research workers was right, when because of their knowledge of international literature they made the question of the legality of human experiments depend in the first place on the voluntariness of the experimental subjects.
2) As far as one can see, the international medical literature up to date nowhere represented the opinion that the consent of a prisoner was ineffective because for reason of his imprisonment, he had no free will. On the contrary: In many cases it has taken an important stop forward, and has frequently, without meeting any opposition, reported on experiments performed on prisoners, THE CONSENT OF WHOM WAS NOT RE* GARDED AS ESSENTIAL. Many experiments which partly were reported here in the verbal procedure, partly described by the document submitted by the Defense, demonstrate clearly that obviously everywhere the opinion prevailed that regarding prisoners, in particular such who were SENTENCED TO DEATH, THE CONSENT OF THE PRISONER WAS REPLACED BY THE PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORITIES TO PERFORM IMPORTANT HUMAN EXPERIMENTS? and even such experiments which were very dangerous and with which fatalities occurred in a more or less large number; because also the published reports talk about the number of deaths in the described experiments, partly slightly camouflaged but to a large extent publicly, without the research worker or the reader realizing that MURDEROUS ACTIONS were being reported, because otherwise the reaction would have been a completely different one.
3) The question becomes particularly acute if these experiments were carried out in a TOTALITARIAN STATE or during a total war. It is not the point in this connection whether a dictatorial regime is desirable or should be rejected, neither whether a war as such appears to be criminal (for example because it will be judged as an aggressive war later on); the attitude that under such exceptional conditions, as they are the case in a dictatorship or total war, even life-endangering experiments on human beings may perhaps be more justified than under normal conditions is obviously based on the thought that the state governed by dictatorship may and will ask for greater sacrifices, also from criminals especially during total war.
As a matter of fact the thought appears to have occurred to many a defendant during this trial; If during a total war the state asks everybody to be ready at any tine to serve at the front, and if during the aerial war every woman and every child at home is exposed daily and every hour to mortal danger, many a citizen would, think it unsatisfactory if especially a criminal, who is burdened with heavy guilt or may even have committed a crime punishable with death, remains free of all danger, in other words would be in a better position than the upright citizen.
It appears now that many an experimental subject who was used at that tine for experiments was of the same opinion, because the witness Karl Wolff stated on oath that the prisoners with whom he spoke in Dachau said, that "they would contribute voluntarily to Germany's war effort and show a sign of their actual good well". (see document book Ruff, document No. 21, page 86). The sane ideas were also stated by various defendants during their interrogation.
4) The attitude toward this problem is extraordinarily difficult, as exceptional circumstances have to be considered which were never thought of earlier; for example, with the question which positions have to be taken in the framework of this problem, particularly by POLITICAL prisoners, or with the difference, whether a death sentence has been passed by an Ordinary Court or by a political Special Court, has earlier apparently not concerned itself with the medical-legal literature for the authorization of human experiments.
With regard to the case Ruff, these difficult questions need perhaps not be examined any further, because it has been established without doubt as was stated from a different side that Ruff was convinced that the experimental persons had volunteered and could be convinced according to the position of the case.
5) In this connection one has repeatedly asked, whether Ruff had convinced himself in Dachau, whether the experimental persons used there were actually condemned PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS, whether he had examined tho PERSONAL records of these prisoners for this purpose, further whether he had made sure if the special privileges promised to the prisoners (as for example their amnesty) were actually given to them later on etc. However such exaggerated demands could not be made of the attitude of professional duty of that time to Dr. Ruff, if one does not want to be unfair to him. Dr. Ruff had never been in a concentration camp otherwise; his short single visit on that day in March 1942, when he was in charge of the high altitude experiments, was the only contact which he had in all his life with the concentration camps; the quiet and reserved scientist had never heard anything in his institute about the cruelties as they took place in the concentration camps, and as we learned of them in this court room. Therefore the thought never occurred to him that ho was deceived in Dachau; as a matter of fact he never doubted that the things he was told by the competent authorities were the absolute truth and therefore there was no cause for him to chock what he had heard as to its accuracy. And then one ought not to disregard the position of Dr. Ruff in his only visit to the Dachau concentration camp in March 1942. He had to be glad that he was allowed inside the camp as a civilian; inside tho camp he was not allowed to move one step of the prescribed way, the guard who accompanied him saw to it that Ruff did not see any more than he was supposed to be shown, end that he could never speak a word with anybody in the camp except with the few experimental subjects.
It would be strange were one to believe that Dr. Ruff could at that time actually could have asked to have a look into the personal files of the prisoners or to ascertain himself about the pardon which was supposed to be given later on. The conduct of the prisoners themselves and the discussions he had with them were actually such that any suspicion in the direction indicated could and actually did not occur to Dr. Ruff.
Therefore in the case of Dr. Ruff one has to remember that experiments on VOLUNTEERS are generally permissible and that the voluntariness is also present and has to have in mind if a PRISONER submits to the experiment. This is obviously also the interpretation of the verdict of the American Military Tribunal II against Field Marshal MILCH of 16 April 1947: MILCH know from the very beginning that experiments were carried out on prisoners in Dachau; in spite of that the Tribunal acquitted him on that count. This would not have been possible if the Tribunal had denied on principle the idea of a prisoner volunteering; because in that case Milch would have had to be sentenced already because he allowed experiments to be carried out on prisoners, but besides that in the verdict against Milch of 16 April 1947 it makes as difference whether a prisoner who allows himself to be used as an experimental subject is a political prisoner or a criminal prisoner or whether the sentence on the prisoner was passed by an Ordinary Court or a political Special Court. It would be incomprehensible now if the Tribunal were to take a different attitude to these questions in the case of Dr. Ruff, than Tribunal No. 2 took in the case of Milch.
Your Honors, in chapter four of my written plea, I have on pages 28 to 46 proven that the high altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg in Dachau at that time were absolutely necessary for Germany at war. Further that these experiments were not extended on principle beyond the solution of the problems which were presented and considered necessary.
I have further proven that Ruff after the completion of his own experiments, after he received notice of Rascher's experiments, went away from Dachau to Berlin immediately afterwards in order to bring back the chamber.
Finally, that the experiments were prepared scientifically well and were conducted correctly.
In the last chapter of my written plea on pages 48 to 62, I have stated that the experiments of Ruff and Romberg were absolutely not dangerous to life, that they were carried out without any incidents, that in these experiments of Ruff and Romberg there were no pains and damage to health to the experimental subjects and that none had any fears.
All of these statements I cannot develop in detail because of the length of time involved, but I assume that the defense counsel for the other defendants will continue to discuss this matter when their turn comes.
On page 62 of my written plea, I then come to the following conclusions:
Dr. RUFF only did what his superiors ordered him to do. If these thus have failed may they be taken to account.
DR. RUFF had no doubts concerning the orders of his superiors for his assignment was urgently necessitated in the interest of his country, engaged in the most difficult war, and of its aviation; if Dr. RUFF at the time had read the entire international literature about medical experiments on human beings he would have been able to learn that experiments much more exerting and much more dangerous than those with which he was familiar, which he knew and planned, were being conducted all over, and also with prisoners, and perhaps are still being conducted without the competent authorities or medical societies declaring them unpermissible and intervening against them.
In long years, Dr. RUFF has proven to be a particularly conscientious and considerate research man who devoted his entire past activity primarily to save endangered human lives. Neither can he be blamed for having collaborated for a short time with Dr. RASCHER. He (RASCHER) has been assigned to him as associate by his highest superiors; he had to rely upon that; if they ordered him to work together with a man who, LATER on, turned out to be a criminal, no liability can be charged to Dr. RUFF. When Dr. RUFF saw through this colleague, forced upon him, and realized his criminal activities, he immediately cut off all relations to him on his own initiative avoided any further collaboration with him and thus probably prevented much toward further disaster..-----
Your Honors, when at the end of tin trial I consider Dr. Ruff in this way in all these long and hard months when I came to know him, my distinct impression is that this kind scientist with his high type of knowledge and his many years of experience in this special field, that this honest man which we have become acquainted with during these months and in whom we can find no fault, this unselfish and responsible researcher, who only thought of his work and thought of others who were in the most danger of their lives, made it his task to save lives. This man does not belong in prison, he should rather continue his research work in the interests of all people and for the salvation of threatened human lives.
I confess quite frankly, Your Honors, to have the deepest impressions that I take with me from this trial and among those impressions is that Dr. Ruff at the end of his scientific assignment of Dr. Ivy, this American scientist and researcher when he asked him to continue certain experiments in the states and to undertake some research in their common special field and to clarify a certain problem, a problem which has as its one purpose to save threatened human lives. Dr. Ruff has not forgotten his task in life and has a consequence has remained faithful to his work. He does not think of liberty and a future for himself, but merely of his great interest in aviators, whom ho loves to help no matter what nationality. You, as judges, have the opportunity to let Dr. Ruff continue his job. Field marshal Milch was acquitted as far as the Dachau altitude tests are concerned, Medical Inspector Dr, Hippke was not indicted at all. Under these circumstances, justice demands that Dr. Ruff be acquitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few moments and when we reconvene will hear arguments on behalf of the defendant Romberg.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from counsel for the defendant Romberg.
DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, members of the Tribunal:
When the prosecution demands, in the German transcript page 54 (English 12), that the Court give its verdict in the name of humanity, it thereby demands a verdict in the name of the community of the world, of a pipe dream rather than an idea even close to realization.
When the prosecution, on page 57 of the German transcript (English 14), considers the completion of this trial as necessary for all people, this trial should, in their opinion, contribute to the obligation of the peoples of the world to recognize the standards used at this trial, an obligation, that is, which has so far not been recognized generally as legally binding and does not even actually exist.
The prosecution is of the opinion that the true purpose of this trial goes beyond the mere exacting of vengeance on the few. It also holds my client, the defendant Dr. Romberg, responsible for murders, tortures, and other atrocities which he is said to have committed under the guise of medical science.
If this trial is to derive the punishment of doctors from the moral concepts of the civilized world, it must definitely be stated that moral values themselves never constitute a basis for demanding punishment. Max Scheler, in his works "Formalism in Ethics" and "The Ethics of Material Values", has convincingly proven the correctness of this opinion.
Natural law does not even demand the punishment of a person who makes no use of his natural right to resist laws which violate the moral values of justice, loyalty, reliability, and others.
The punishment of such action is merely a measure of expediency, for otherwise the principle "nulla poena sine lege" would logically be incompatible with natural law itself. This principle demands that the legislator not create a new law and thus make retroactively punishable an immoral action which, at the time of the action, violates no legal standards.
Let me in this connection quote a word of the wise Koenigsberger philosopher Kant: "Nothing but good will is conceivable in this world, or even outside of it, which can be considered good without any reservation. Good will is not only what it effects or achieves. It is not its usefulness in achieving some predetermined purpose, but it is the willingness which is good in itself."
The prosecution charges Romberg with violation, from 1939 to 1945, of the Control Council Law No. 10, which was not promulgated until 20 December 1945. The Control Council Law No. 10 lists criminal acts against international law, determines the responsibility of single individuals, and establishes the competence of this military tribunal.
The question whether the Tribunal is competent as an American military tribunal to pass judgment on offenses committed before the occupation of Germany shall not be considered idle. The fact is that the Tribunal has constituted itself and must make a decision in accordance with Ordinance No. 7, Control Council Law No. 10, the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and the Executive Order of the President of the United States through which the judges were appointed. We must, however, sharply distinguish the procedural question and the question on which material criminal law is to be applied in arriving at a decision. The proclamation of Ordinance No. 7 shows in itself that even American procedure is not considered applicable without a legislative act of the occupying power.
My written plea or closing brief, which I have submitted and which can be read here only in parts and in its basic arguments because of lack of time, is then followed by a short discussion of Control Council Law No. 10, and especially an answer to the charge of conspiracy. In this connection I refer to the argument presented by the defense in the plenary session of Military Tribunals I, II, III, IV, and V on 9 July 1947.
Also in view of the fact that a decision of this Tribunal has been rendered on 14 July 1947, I do not have to deal with this any further.
In addition, I have considered the preparation, execution, and result of the Ruff-Romberg experiments, to which I want to refer here. But I would also like to make a brief statement about the position of the prosecution expert Professor Ivy in regard to slow-sinking experiments.
The question now arises whether the danger of the slow-sinking experiments emphasized by Professor Ivy really was so great that these slow-sinking experiments, in view of the evident unreliability of the calculations and animal experiments, are to be considered medically not responsible. Where does Professor Ivy see the special danger in these slow-sinking experiments? Professor Ivy considers it possible that in these experiments anoxia lasting for almost ten minutes could cause damage to the brain cells. He also considers it possible that the damage to the brain cells caused by the slow-sinking experiments were not detected because no intelligence tests were given in which a decrease in the learning capacity could have been noted (page 9145 of the German, page 9036 of the English, and pages 9186-9187 of the German, page 9080 of the English minutes).
The following questions are to be clarified in regard to this testimony:
1. Is there any damage to brain cells when anoxia lasts less than ten minutes?
2. When such damage appears under longer anoxia, is it then localized in the cortex cerebri?
3. When the damage is not localized in the cortex cerebri, but in other parts of the brain, how does such damage manifest itself and by what methods can it be detected?
4. Is it possible to conduct an examination of the learning capacity by an intelligence test?
and 5. How great is the degree of probability for such an injury?
Is it so great as to define the execution of similar experiments as being irresponsible?
These questions were answered by Professor Ivy as follows:
To Question No. 1: Professor Ivy answered the question as to whether he knew a case of demonstrable brain injury incurred through temporary anoxia, "No" (page 9308 of the German and 9201 of the English transcript), and then he continues on page 9309 of the German and 9201 of the English transcript: "Two factors have to be taken into consideration here: First the degree of anoxia and then the time. These two factors must be taken into consideration, and as you say in your own report you were dealing with the extreme limits that, in your opinion, were still on the harmless side of the danger line."
To Question No. 2: Dr. Ivy, when asked where, after long lasting anoxia, the brain injuries occurred, affirmed that in most of the cases such injuries appeared in the main ganglia and especially in the area of the corpus striatum, that is, not in the pericranium (page 9309 of the German and 9202 of the English transcript).
To Question No. 3: Dr. Ivy answers and affirms the corresponding question that injuries of this kind generally are connected with disturbances known as parkinsonianism. Disturbances of this kind may also appear later, after 5-10 days, and then even lead to death. In any event, however, these disturbances cannot be ascertained through intelligence tests (page 9310 of the German, page 9202 of the English record).
To Question No. 4: With regard to this point Dr. Ivy stated that he had knowledge of papers on the registration of injuries of brain cells through anoxia by way of testing the learning capacity in animal experiments (page 9307 of the German, page 9200 of the English record). According to the statements of Professor Ivy no experiences in connection with the reduction of the learning capacity of human beings, nor the registration by means of intelligence tests, are available.
To Question No. 5: To Judge Sebring's question (page 9217 of the German, page 9111 of the English transcript), "Is in the Ruff-Romberg report mention made of experiments of which it can be said with absolute certainty that they resulted in deaths, permanent injury, or great pains for the experimental subjects?"
the expert Professor Ivy answered, "No, but you will recall that I said that there was a possibility that the learning capacity of the experimental subject might suffer from the long anoxia of the brain. However, that was not the purpose of the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments."
To the President's question, "Mr. Ivy, is it or is it not your opinion that the experiment of a slow descent from an altitude of 47,500 feet, as executed by the defendants Ruff and Romberg, would probably cause injuries for the experimental subjects?" Professor Ivy gave the following answer: "I said already that possibly the learning capacity might suffer from it, but there is no reason to assume that injuries can be caused." (Page 9437 of the German and page 9325 of the English transcript) This is such a low degree of improbability, also confirmed by this severe expert of the prosecution, that no reproach can be made to a scientist if he conducts such experiments, especially when the experimental subjects were warned with regard to the possible risk connected with the experiment.
The discussion of the final reports on the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments, Document No. 402, Exhibit 66, Document Book II of the prosecution, and the questions whether the Ruff-Romberg experiments were painful or dangerous for the lives of the experimental subjects cannot be dealt with in detail now. In this connection I want to refer to my written closing brief.