News

When pathology residents begin their microbiology rotation, they expect to learn blood culture interpretation, molecular diagnostics, and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. They are often surprised when our discussions turn instead to the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial, Japan’s Unit 731, and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

Those conversations are intentional.

My interest in the history and ethics of medicine long predates my career in clinical microbiology. Early training in the history of science, followed by graduate study in bioethics, shaped how I understood the relationship between scientific progress and moral responsibility. At the time, I viewed medical ethics largely as a parallel discipline to laboratory medicine—important, but distinct.

That perspective changed once I began practicing as a medical microbiologist.

Among the historical cases I had studied, one began to take on a different weight in my thinking: Japan’s Unit 731. Unlike other episodes in medical history, Unit 731 was not an abstraction or a peripheral misuse of scientific knowledge. It was a program conceived and led by physicians and microbiologists who deliberately applied the tools of our discipline toward human experimentation and biological warfare.

Revisiting that history not as a historian or bioethicist alone, but as a working microbiologist, altered how I understood my own profession. It forced a confrontation with an uncomfortable reality: the same technical expertise that enables diagnostic precision can also be repurposed in the absence of ethical constraint. From that realization followed a simple but enduring principle in my teaching—scientific rigor is never sufficient without ethical judgment.

As I pursue a secondary faculty appointment in bioethics, I have increasingly sought to integrate these lessons into routine laboratory education. Not as a standalone ethics lecture, but as a persistent undercurrent in how we think about laboratory medicine itself. Every specimen we process, every assay we validate, and every new diagnostic platform we adopt exists within an ethical framework shaped by prior failures.

The approaching 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial provides an opportunity to reflect on that framework again.

More than history

Clinical microbiology is a field defined by extraordinary scientific progress. From Koch’s postulates to molecular diagnostics and metagenomic sequencing, we have transformed infectious disease from a primarily clinical discipline into a data-driven laboratory science.

Yet the history of our field also demonstrates that scientific achievement, in isolation, is not a safeguard against ethical failure.

The physicians involved in Nazi medical experiments and in Unit 731 were often trained investigators working within structured academic and military systems. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, conducted under the U.S. Public Health Service, persisted for decades even after effective therapy for syphilis became available. These examples differ in geography and intent, but they share a structural commonality: scientific authority became decoupled from ethical accountability.

The Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial represented an attempt to repair that rupture. The resulting Nuremberg Code articulated principles that now underpin human subjects research: voluntary consent, minimization of harm, and the primacy of patient welfare.

Although most clinical microbiologists will never participate directly in human experimentation, we routinely work within systems that rely on the same ethical foundations—assay validation studies, biobanking protocols, genomic surveillance, artificial intelligence development, and multicenter research collaborations. The scale and complexity have changed. The underlying responsibilities have not.

Ethics at the bench

One of the reasons I have come to value teaching in the microbiology laboratory is that ethical questions arise naturally from daily work.

When residents validate a new molecular assay, the discussion inevitably extends beyond sensitivity and specificity into questions of diagnostic stewardship and access. When we interpret whole genome sequencing data, we confront issues of privacy, incidental findings, and data ownership. When we evaluate artificial intelligence–assisted tools, we must consider bias, transparency, and clinical accountability.

These are not theoretical concerns. They are embedded in routine practice.

History provides a necessary frame for these discussions. Rather than presenting Nuremberg, Unit 731, or Tuskegee as isolated moral failures, I ask residents a more uncomfortable question: how did individuals with advanced scientific training come to believe that these actions were acceptable?

Ethical breakdowns rarely begin with explicit malice. They emerge gradually—through institutional pressure, normalization of deviation, hierarchical authority, and the progressive substitution of scientific goals for human-centered judgment.

Those mechanisms are not confined to history. They remain present in modern biomedical systems, albeit in more subtle forms. 

New technologies, familiar questions

The microbiology laboratory of 2026 is technologically unrecognizable compared to the era in which the Nuremberg Code was written. We now sequence pathogens within hours, integrate laboratory data across health systems, and use computational models to support diagnostic interpretation.

Despite these advances, the ethical questions remain strikingly consistent.

Who owns laboratory-generated genomic data? How should incidental findings be managed and communicated? What level of transparency is required when artificial intelligence influences clinical decisions? How do we ensure that international collaborations do not reproduce inequities in access, consent, or benefit sharing?

These questions are not new; they are enduring questions expressed through more complex systems.

Preparing future laboratory leaders

Residents training in pathology today will inherit responsibilities that extend well beyond traditional diagnostic interpretation. They will oversee increasingly complex systems of data generation, algorithmic assistance, and global research integration.

Preparing them for that role requires more than procedural competence or regulatory familiarity. It requires developing ethical judgment as an operational skill.

Historical case studies are particularly powerful because they convert abstract principles into lived scenarios. They force trainees to grapple with ambiguity: not simply what was wrong, but how it became thinkable in the first place.

My goal is not to turn residents into historians. It is to cultivate a reflexive habit of inquiry—one that persists when no one is explicitly asking ethical questions.

Stewardship beyond the laboratory

Clinical microbiologists often describe themselves as stewards of antimicrobial testing, diagnostic utilization, and laboratory resources.

I have come to view that stewardship as broader.

We are also stewards of public trust.

The 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial is therefore not simply commemorative. It is a reminder that ethical frameworks require continual reinforcement.

If trainees leave the laboratory able to perform rigorous science while also interrogating its moral boundaries, then we preserve something essential about the future of medicine.

References

1. Bruns, D. E., Burtis, C. A., Gronowski, A. M., McQueen, M. J., Newman, A., & Jonsson, J. J. (2015). Variability of ethics education in Laboratory Medicine Training Programs: Results of an international survey. Clinica Chimica Acta, 442, 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2014.11.023
2. Gronowski, A. M., Budelier, M. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2019). Ethics for Laboratory Medicine. Clinical Chemistry, 65(12), 1497–1507. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2019.306670
3. Lerner, B. H., & Caplan, A. L. (2016). Judging the past: How history should inform bioethics. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(9), 675. https://doi.org/10.7326/l16-0330
4. Pennestrì, F., & Banfi, G. (2022). Artificial Intelligence in Laboratory Medicine: Fundamental ethical issues and normative key-points. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), 60(12), 1867–1874. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0096
5. Shuster, E. (1997). Fifty years later: The significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine, 337(20), 1436–1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199711133372006
6. Tobin, M. J. (2022). Fiftieth anniversary of uncovering the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The Story and Timeless Lessons. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 205(10), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202201-0136so