And additional question: even if it was technically feasible, was it really ethical to surgically implant Hitler's cloned brained into the body of a silverback gorilla and make it fight against Tigerstalin?

Is there any value to analyzing his DNA? The idea that evil is genetic is itself feeding into some Nazi ideas about eugenics that are deeply wrong.

I find it curious that they talk about privacy for Hitler but don't mention Henrietta Lacks who this very thing happened to. Her cell cultures are being used to this day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

Does this neolithic prehuman have a right to privacy? If they can't give consent, what does it say about this project?

For fuck sake.... Genetists needs to read some social science. What is all with this making Hitler the biggest reason for the existence of Nazism and the occurrence of the Holocaust? This is why people believe that you can beat fascism with a vote, as if it is a leadership problem and not a complete social movement and social transformation problem

If it turns out Hitler had some bad genes his relatives' descendants will get a bad name. This is obviously a joke, but it's actually true as well. They've all distanced themselves from the name Hitler, but surely some people know about their relation to Adolf. I guess the questions is: how bad is it when you're grandfathers half-brother or whatever his DNA is public. There is a legitimate privacy concern there, that shouldn't be too easily dismissed because 'haha hitler & privacy'.

The whole study is weird. Do they think there is a correlation between his DNA and the horrible acts he did? Are we going to start rounding up anyone with that genetic marker? Put them in camps?

He's been dead for 80 years, that's plenty long enough for anyone's feelings to not matter.

Does Tutankhamun's DNA need consent?

Disregarding the fact that he was evil, Im not sure historical figures qualify for the same rights as we average people do. I think at most, we should respect what they respected, and Hitler did not respect privacy, so get fucked nazi, your DNA is ours.

I think that's an easy one: Hitler is dead and, as far as I know, never had any direct descendants or relatives that could object on valid reasons.

What a pointless question. There's literally nothing we could hope to learn from examining his specific DNA.

This is like how some scientist stole Einstein's brain to see what made him so smart and didn't find anything. Pointless.

The fact that this is being used as an argument against right to privacy is an ad absurdum strawman.

Why are we even talking about Hitler's DNA? Out of all the news why this. We are seriously weird.

There have also been raised eyebrows at the very name of the documentary, especially the second part: Blueprint of a Dictator.

Prof King said it wasn't a name she would have chosen, and historian Prof Thomas Weber, who is featured in the programme, told the BBC he was surprised at the title, given they had stressed there is "no dictator gene".

"We should do whatever we can to understand past extremism," Prof Weber believes.

did the dictator gene infect 12 million german army, ignoring volunteer corps in all of europe as well? smh, some twerp will clone hitler probably in not so distant future.

p.s. there is something deeply ironic in trying to trace hitler's shit (or jewishness) to dna though, good bit.

Do dead people have rights? 🤔

or his descendants

this is a stupid question even removed from the hitler conundrum. love to say "no, fuck off" my whole life until they can track down a twice removed cousin failson to say "he didn't mean it like that" after I croak

According to the GOP, since the dead pay no taxes to America, they have no rights.

No but not because he deserves privacy but because some freaks would try to clone him.

And what else are you going to do with that information anyway? Some anti-Hitler eugenics? That's the worst take on that history I've seen recently.

Who is harmed by this? No one living. Maybe you could argue Hitler has some right to not have his remains disturbed, but DNA testing isn't very invasive and we do it at crime scenes without consent all the time, so it's minor even if relevant.

What could we learn? Nothing of value. Even if there is some "psychopath gene" or "genocide gene" you'd need 100s of examples to show the effect and far easier to just pick such candidates from living, diagnosed people who can consent.

So then should we do it? Probs not. No real reason to, even though there's little reason not to.

I know my institution wouldn't allow this without informed consent from himself pre-death or legally responsible family members. Plus you have to be able to withdraw consent at any time and we have to destroy all data, including sequencing analysis, upon request. Not sure how that affects published data but we'd have to strip it out of any data repositories the publications may point to as well.