The Story of One of The Most Prestigious Medicine-related Awards

Arguably one of the most prestigious medicine-related awards has a story behind it that some would label more prominent than the award itself. Since 1963, the Space Medicine Association (SMA) rewards the “Hubertus Strughold Award” annually to a top scientist or clinician for outstanding work in aviation medicine (Lagnado). The award is respectively named after Hubertus Strughold, although I believe such a prestigious award should be named after somebody who can be equally called so. I believe Hubertus Strughold’s name should be dropped as the name for this award, on the grounds of feelings towards Nazi Germany, the lack of second chances in America, and the irreversible actions of Strughold himself.

Since the end of the most devastating war the world has ever seen, orld War Two, the crimes of Nazi Germany still ring true in the hearts of many Americans. The extermination of over six million Jews can easily be labeled as the most horrific mass killing in history. After the war was over, the United States conducted the Nuremburg Trials (Lagnado) in an attempt to prosecute Nazi-related criminals. Among these trials, was a man by the name of Hubertus Strughold, who was suspect to have been involved in “some notorious Dachau concentration camp experiments” (Lagnado).

One may question, how can a suspected criminal obtain the honor of having this prodigious award named after him? The American public is being reminded of Nazi Germany each time the award is given, opposed to the outstanding work completed by the scientist receiving the award (Lagnado). Some may ask, why was the award named after him in the first place? The term relating to naming an award, movie, street name, etc. is known as an eponym. An eponym generally refers to a popular name, or someone that helped create what actually is being named (Webster’s).

The eponym for such an award given by the SMA should depict an undeniable role model, somebody who carries the prestige of the award with honor and dignity. However, I do not believe honor and dignity come in the form of conducting potentially fatal experiments on children. German scholars have taken note that “at least one set of human experiments—involving children—took place inside Dr. Strughold's own institute” (Lagnado). This event has been documented as truth, and regards half a dozen adolescent children being taken from a local psychiatric facility, and transported to a lab where human experiments were conducted (Lagnado).

Although, when asked about said experiments, Dr. Strughold responded with ‘I have always forbidden even the thought of such experiments in my institute’ (Lagnado). Regarding “an undeniable role model” as mentioned earlier, the SMA is now dealing with an untrustworthy war criminal as the focal point of their highly honored award. Others may argue that everybody deserves a second chance, in an attempt to better themselves and the world around them. I simply disagree. It seems as if the American standard is to not allow second chances. Ask President Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, or any other Presidents who were rejected by the American people in strive for a second term in office. Or you could ask the millions of students around the country who have received a “zero” on an assignment being turned in late. Simply put, the American infrastructure gives room for very little second chances. If second chances aren’t readily available for Americans, I do not believe the American public would be ready to give Dr. Strughold another try.

In an effort to restore the dignity and pride to this award given by the SMA, some may argue that since Dr. Strughold was never convicted, he should be a free man, with no wrongs holding him back. Although, even if Dr. Strughold had not participated directly in the Dachau concentration camp experiments, it has been proven that experiments were conducted on children in his lab, which would give him responsibility. During the war (1942) the doctor attended a medical conference in Germany (Lagnado). Comments made by the doctor during this conference suggested that he was not against the hypothermia “cold” testing, and the results would be of interest to scientists (Lagnado). Dr. Hubertus Strughold has shown in multiple situations how his name should not be the eponym of an award that demonstrates trust, care, and knowledge at the highest level.