To what extent was the Japanese Human Experimentation prior to and during World War Two Justified?
Do you mean justified by history, ie. how and why have historians attempted to justify it? I hope so, because if you are looking at it more from a "was morally/ethically justified" then you'll probably be focusing too much on the history, and not the historiography.Regardless of contemporary pacifist claims that the human experimentation of Unit 731 and associated laboratories was ‘undisputedly… unethical, outrageous and abhorrent’ (Nie 2001, p.2), those who participated in these experiments believed themselves to be and were justified, in the short term context of war.
In terms of historiography, I hope you mention how contemporary individuals can view the past with knowledge of its impact, whereas those who where active at the time being studied have no actual knowledge of the impact that their actions may have in years to come. Historians are being retrospective! However, it must be considered that the relevance (‘investigated a research question that had not already been answered in previous studies and it had at least two outcomes that could plausibly occur’ (Bärnighausen 2010, p.84)) of particular experiments was absent and their actions later had a profound impact on Japanese medical ethics; it was absent.
I don't really understand what you are saying here - sentence structure needs cleaning up.Therefore, in the knowledge that their experiments would yield important results, and their ultranationalist ideologies (as well as the superiority complex embedded in this) within the exceptional circumstance of war, the justification in the actions existed solely in the process of them and does not extend past the boundaries of its history.
Interesting! So you are saying that the discipline and writing of history cannot justify human experimentation, as context has shifted? So it was justified according to the context of the individuals who took part, but as context and values have shifted, it is now unjustifiable according to our contemporary standards? Again, I think you can link this to the idea that historians are retrospective, but also to the subjectiveness of morality and ethics. While the position of strict non-use of unethically obtained data may be argued, ethics merely provide a theoretical stance towards an exceptional circumstance; war. Thus, while the acts of Unit 731 ‘shall be denounced by any moral standard’ (Ishii Harumi 1982, p.13), those involved believed themselves justified in the development of ‘desperately needed social goods’ (Döring 2010, p.142). An anonymous former member of Unit 731 stated ‘there’s a possibility that this could happen again, because in war, you have to win.’ It is thus highlighted that war is a circumstance in which behaviours not regularly considered justified can be carried out with ‘less inhibition in viewing other human beings as biological resources for medical purposes’ (Döring 2010, p.144).
Subjectivity of ethics and morality! So by extension, due to its subjective nature, is it a valid historical tool? I.e. should historians be writing history from a moral/ethical standing point? Michael Thomas in the ‘Ethical Lessons of the Failure to Bring the Japanese Doctors to Justice’ ‘contends that the [war] argument is weak,’ (2003, p.1) however, he fails to see this argument in an ideological way
I love the discussion of limitation here! But be specific when you say "ideological way" - as Keith Jenkin's says, we are all inherently "present-minded ideological worker". Ideology is our inescapable reality, and everyone is impacted in some way, what differs is the actual ideology they follow!; ‘if the people are going to die anyway, then why not use them as experimental subjects for biological warfare research? This argument is given as a justification or excuse or rationale for human experimentation’ (2003, p.1). Thomas addresses the argument of war as an exceptional circumstance in a superficial way, war did not exist as an excuse for the human experimentation, it was believed by those involved to be a genuine and rational justification
this sentence is a bit confusing, I think you need to explain it a bit more because though I think I understand, it sounds a bit contradictory - it's not an excuse but then it is a justification?; ‘We believed that the war was conducted in order to bring wealth to Japan’ (Morimura, 1983, p.109). The ideology of the war argument is seen in ‘The Bacteriological Warfare Unit and the Suicide of Two Physicians’ by Tsuneishi and Asano, which highlights the methodology under which the Japanese operated in their research into biological and chemical warfare; ‘no matter what was done, anything was permissible so long as it was ‘for the people’ or for the ‘good of society’… in everyday society, there was no such distinction on reasons for killing.’ In this way the activities that occurred were deemed acceptable and when studied through an ethical stance, it is clear that conditional use of unethically obtained data was a conscious methodology of many involved. Although Ole Döring in ‘Japan’s Wartime Medical Atrocities,’ claims that ‘it can never be argued that the ends justifies the means,’ (2010, p.142) as a pacifist, he disregards the whole-hearted ultranationalist ideology of participants and their fanatic loyalty to country and emperor (Harris 2002, p.15) in which the ‘end justifying the means’ was an inherent value. Furthermore, Döring (2010, p.142) recognises the problems in ‘measuring or otherwise positively accounting for ‘good’ or ‘right’ intentions’ and this becomes particularly problematic in the circumstance of Japan’s human experimentation, where the ‘pre-war education’ established that ‘the people of Japan [were] a superior race’ (Kojima Takeo 1996, p.246); a de facto racism ensued. Furthermore, Tsuneishi and Asano show the distinction between the moral expectations or perhaps disregard during war and everyday moral behaviours; ‘[Physicians involved in Unit 731 and similar activities] are the type of people who would be greatly troubled if they just injured another person in an automobile accident.’ War was thus clearly considered an exceptional circumstance to non-use of unethically obtained data and in this way those involved in the human experimentation had moral reasoning in their actions. Conversely, Kojima Takeo, a Captain of the Japanese Imperial Army who was involved in Unit 731, stated that ‘[they] had no sense of guilt or of doing anything wrong,’ which connotes that some participants put no consideration into whether their actions would otherwise be considered unacceptable outside of war. An anonymous hygiene specialist at the Unit 731 facility referred to incidents of water torture and stated “that’s war” to a friend who had seen it occur. Clearly, war was believed to be an inherently atrocious occurrence and that these acts were accepted as a necessary part of it. It is thus evident that in some cases, conscious consideration of ethical issues that may have arisen from the human experimentation, did not occur and thus that practical circumstances were difficult to compare with a theoretical approach of ethics.
Awesome! Really really interesting, philosophical stuff, I really like it. I potentially would like a bit more of a discussion of this on a historiographical sense though - so linking this more explicitly back to concepts such as truth, objectivity, subjectivity, etc., and maybe incorporating some historiographers works, that though they may not directly relate to your topic of human experimentation, the ideas they present CAN link if you yourself make the connection (thus asserting that you understand their argument, and its universal nature (if applicable). Ethics are moral principles which govern an individual’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity, however they are dependent upon the individual’s contexts
fantastic judgement! However I'd go even further - the we interpret the morals of others is at the same time contextual (hopefully you go into that ). Ishii Shiro, the director of Unit 731 and associated laboratories, carried little notion of commonly accepted ethical boundaries in relation to the use of human experimentation in biological and chemical warfare within the context of war. However a Western perspective regards the experiments as ‘so inhumane that they were in breach even of the rules of war’ (Thomas 2003, p.1).
Western perspective - do you think that this in anyway links to some of the ideals of the Enlightenment? Also, do you think you could link this to concepts like 'Orientalism' for example? In spite of this, Ishii was nevertheless aware of the scruples attached to these actions outside of war; ‘we were told to take the secret to the grave with us’ (Shinohara 1996, p.227). In this way, the society of emperorism in Japan, one where a citizen’s ‘absolute responsibility above the army and government was to the emperor’ (Captain of Japanese Imperial Army, Kojima Takeo), as well as the ultranationalism that arose from this, allowed these behaviours otherwise regarded as unethical to be deemed suitable and necessary. Outside of war, the ‘danger of discovery’ (Harris 2002, p.31) impacted the location of the facilities. Subsequently, the knowledge of those involved of the immorality of their actions is evident. In terms of the context of war, as a result of Ishii’s ultranationalist values, he was ‘fanatically loyal to country and emperor’ (Harris 2002, p.15) while simultaneously ‘burning with ambition to make a name for himself within the medical profession’ (Harris 2002, p.16). Moreover, due to his extreme intelligence, Ishii had a ‘fever for research,’ however ‘[this] forward drive ran roughshod over protocol’ (Gold 1996, p. 23). Hence, the way in which Ishii applied himself arose from his personal ‘duty to sacrifice some for the benefit of the many’ (Döring 2010, p. 143)
Great, but this is a bit too "history" and not enough "historiography". What I am more concerned about is the way in which Ishii's actions have been interpreted (and maybe justified) by others, more so than how he justified it to himself.. In this way, the events that took place in Unit 731 and associated laboratories, during the war, can be considered justified as those involved based their actions on their personal ethical values in a time of war
but what about the historian's ethical values, when interpreting these actions?. Conversely, it can be said that Ishii’s exposure to the illegality of biological and chemical warfare reflects a disregard for ethical principles, however through a report by Second Class (First Lieutenant) Physician Harada on the 1925 Geneva Disarmament Convention, ‘which outlawed, at least on paper both chemical and biological warfare’ (Harris 2002, p.19), Ishii noted that ‘if something were bad enough to be outlawed, then it must certainly be effective’ (Gold 1996, p.24). In this way, the Geneva Convention was a source of his motivation rather than one of discouragement. Through this, it is clear that Ishii’s intelligence and education gave him a notion of practicality over procedure; once again his personal morals came into play.
Still too much history for me. Furthermore, as part of Japanese belief, ‘the emperor was a living deity’ (Kojima Takeo 1996, p.245) and possessed the divine right to rule an area of Asia known as the Greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere; by governing the people of this area, he would ‘bring them happiness’ (Kojima Takeo 1996, p.246). In this way it is clear that contemporary moral principles that influence the way we act have little significance in this ultranationalist society, where loyalty and thus devotion laid with the Emperor; the people were ‘set upon serving [their] country’ (Harris 2002 p.15)
Better - now we're getting more into the historiography, but its historiography that should be dominant, so I still think you need way more of it, and to cut down on some of the history from before.. Yet Ishii’s education did not include a course in medical ethics, thus it can be said that he ‘never concerned himself with medical or other forms of ethics’ (Harris 2002, p.16) and therefore that his ignorance provides him with justification. As stated in ‘The Bacteriological Warfare Unit and the Suicide of Two Physicians’ by Tsuneishi and Asano, however, ‘many physicians of conscience and thinking were a part of ‘Unit 731’ and similar activities’. In this way, the moral principles of Ishii are regarded, despite that these principles were different to those outside of Japan. It is clear that Ishii’s values reflected a concern for practicality; the activities of Unit 731 and associated laboratories were undertaken for the benefit of the many. Clearly, the ideological underpinnings of their actions are significant in providing them with justification.
Overall, though this paragraph is very interesting, constructed beautifully and clearly well researched - it's history, not historiography. You need to be emphasising how and why people have interpreted the actions of Ishii, and whether they can justify his actions based upon their subjective concept, rather than how he himself was able to justify it. You touch on what I think could become a great argument - "In this way it is clear that contemporary moral principles that influence the way we act have little significance in this ultranationalist society, where loyalty and thus devotion laid with the Emperor; the people were ‘set upon serving [their] country’ (Harris 2002 p.15)". I think this should be expanded upon, and make up the bulk of your paragraph - how can we attempt to justify the past based upon the morality of the present? Link to the concept of hindsight, and being retrospective, etc. etc. That will make for a more "history extension" response.While the exceptional circumstance of war functioned as a justification in the process of the Japanese human experimentation, the establishment of biological and chemical warfare research, its continuation throughout the war and the successful suppression of its occurrence in history was not possible without the condoning by external platforms of authority. Jing- Bao Nie, of the University of Otago, states that those who engaged in the human experimentation ‘represented the evil force universally existing among human beings,’ (Nie 2001, p. 1) however, ‘many members of Japan’s scientific establishment, along with virtually every military leader of note and members of the imperial family, either participated in chemical or biological warfare research, or supported these projects with men, money and material’ (Harris 2002, pg. 14), and certainly these groups can be held equally accountable for the ‘most unethical, outrageous and abhorrent’ (Nie 2001, p.2) events.
But what about the historians? It would be interesting to see a discussion upon their own culability. In the testimony of Hiyama, a member of Unit 731, the effect of the attitudes and behaviours of people and other countries on their actions is clear; it allowed them to be justified in participating, “there is nothing shameful in what I did at Unit 731… The Soviet Union was also conducting research into germ weapons… I was doing this for Japan, and I am not ashamed at all of what I did.” However, while Takashi Tsuchiya states that ‘the loss of common sense of humanity among researchers when the experimentation was performed secretly’ allowed the ‘mass murder’ (Nie 2001, p.2) to occur, it is evident through Hiyama’s testimony that even many years after the Second World War, many involved ‘did not have even the slightest sense of guilt’ (Nihon Jido 1983, p.109) even when the secrets were known to many. On an international scale, Japan was condoned for committing war crimes, by not being brought to trial. The USA came to an agreement with Japan; ‘in return for exclusive access to the experimental data, members of the Unit, from Ishii down, were granted immunity from prosecution.’ (MacDonald 2010, p.168) Hence, while it may be argued that the 1925 Geneva Disarmament Convention elucidated the illegality of their research, it was undermined by the actions of the United States
has this shaped the way history has been written about the subject? Do historians attempt to cover up this aspect of history as well?. Thus, while ‘America expeditiously gained twenty years’ worth of information at minimal financial cost’ (MacDonald 2010, p.168), certainly their actions further justified Japan, encouraging their continued lack of remorse while simultaneously committing an equally atrocious act to the human experimentation itself, from a contemporary Western perspective
Is this a suppressed feature of their national history? Ie. it's not mentioned in school textbooks, etc.? Because that would have some interesting historiographical implications, in that they essentially would be rewriting the narrative of their history, through purposeful omission.. Furthermore, the 1925 Geneva Disarmament Convention ‘did not arouse much interest’ (Harris 2002, p.19) in Japan, and through this, yielded little authority over their actions. Despite that this did not impact their judgment, it can be said that Japanese ideologies originating from Confucianism provide a reason as to why the experiments were unethical. In ‘Ethical Lessons of the Failure to Bring the Japanese Doctors to Justice,’ Michael Thomas refers to the Confucian values of ‘yi nai renshu’ (medicine as an art of humanity). By referring to these values as ‘fundamental Japanese Principles,’ (2003, p. 1) Thomas references Tsuchiya’s argument of these events as revealing an evil inherent to the human condition. However, through a testimony by Unit 731 member, Hoshi, it is clear that the militarisation of the practice of medicine in the context of war, as well as the condoning of the actions by his superiors, prevailed over these values; ‘Although I didn’t regard the Chinese as human beings, I hated cutting them up like this. However, I could not disobey the order.’ (Hoshi 2002, p.112) Evidently, these Confucian values functioned only in the normal social context. Thus, these events were very much allowed to occur due to the condoning on several levels, providing those involved with justification to carry them out.
Again, not enough historiography was in this essay. Remember that the focus of this course is on historiography - how and why history is interpreted in different ways. Throughout your essay, I think you are focusing too much on the attitudes of the time in which you are studying, rather than focusing on the attitudes of people studying and writing the history years later (which is the focus of the course).Despite that Unit 731’s human experimentation was justified as a function of the contexts, the significance of these events in shaping Japan’s later medical ethics plays an important role in questioning whether or not they were wholly justified. Furthermore, the relevance of the research and the extent to which the experiments aided in the Japanese war effort, while somewhat present, are undermined not only by their later ethical impact, but also by the possibility that the success of the results may have been overstated by Ishii and by the existing ‘ethical’ alternatives to the human experimentation in testing their hypotheses. In ‘Japan’s Wartime Medical Atrocities’, Till Bärnighausen, Assistant Professor of Global Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, addresses the relevance of experiments (‘i.e., it investigated a research question that had not already been answered in previous studies and it had at least two outcomes that could plausibly occur’ (Bärnighausen 2010, p. 84). While it is clear that some experiments, such as those testing hypotheses on tuberculosis, the effects of mustard gas and the treatment of frostbite, were relevant and did not have ethical alternatives in order to prove the hypotheses being investigated, ‘many of the human experiments conducted by Unit 731 were not relevant because they investigated research hypotheses that had either already been proven to be true or were highly implausible’ (Bärnighausen 2010, p. 84). Thus, it is evident that many experiments conducted offered no contribution to scientific knowledge, or to the Japanese war effort, and thus that the Japanese scientists were insufficiently justified to carry them out. Furthermore, ‘the issue of human experimentation has become a taboo
you could look at this historiographically - is it a historical taboo, in that it is omitted from national history? Are people let likely to discuss it because of its nature as a taboo, thus rewriting the past? Are people less likely to consider the topic critically, due to its taboo and controversial nature? in [the] Japanese Medical Profession after World War II’ (Tsuchiya 2003, p.1) and ‘[this is probably] the reason why [a] human experimentation framework is absent in Japan’ (Tsuchiya 2003, p.1). Subsequently, throughout the 1950s instances of human experimentation without informed consent (permission granted in full knowledge of the possible consequences,) took place, in which lobotomies were performed on psychiatric patients, and disease causing agents were injected into infants and psychiatric patients without the knowledge of family members. Although the Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics has provided a platform in which the human experimentation can be learnt from and ethical issues can be addressed, certainly the hostility surrounding human experimentation in Japan due to the events of World War II has had a profound effect on Japanese scientists. In this way, the scientific idea of progression and thought for future generations has been disregarded and consequently, the justification of the scientists in their human experiments is undermined.
Certainly, the Japanese scientists acted under the idea that the end justifies the means. In hindsight, the events that took place were atrocious, and it is difficult to comprehend how they may have been able to perform an act so cruel, one which seemed to completely disregard individual dignity. However, it is clear through testimonies of many involved that their ultranationalist ideologies, within the context of war and the condoning by those around them, that they very much believed themselves to be justified and possessed no notion of wrong-doing. It seems that those who performed human experiments in order to contribute to the war effort, were justified, but merely in the short term of the war and within the idea that these experiments would yield vital results.