Peter Moore: What Hitler’s DNA can – and can’t – reveal

In an amazing piece of research Hitler’s DNA has been sequenced. Does this provide a fascinating insight into the mind of a tyrant or are we in danger of reading too much into his genetic code?

When American troops broke into Hitler’s bunker a piece of blood stained cloth was found on the chair where he shot himself. This was kept as a memento by an army press officer.

When the leading expert, Professor Turi King was asked whether she could look at it she was uncertain. She had worked under Professor Alec Jeffreys who invented the idea of DNA profiling in forensic cases. She also proved that the skeleton in the Leicester car park was King Richard III. After analysing the DNA, she appeared to be the best person.

She insisted that this had to be a part of bona fide scientific research and not a publicity stunt for the media. Also, would any result be misinterpreted? Would anyone with a similar genome be accused to being a potential psychopath? Would it put Hitler on a pedestal for far-right groups? But she realised that if she refused, someone else with a less ethical approach might be asked.

The investigation is now a channel 4 documentary, “Hitler’s DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator." 

The blood was found to be authentic after she compared the DNA with known relatives of Hitler. The results were interesting.

He had Kallmann syndrome, a genetic condition which leads to delayed puberty and poor development of the sexual organs. He would also have had low testosterone levels. This fitted in with the records of a medical he had in 1923 which noted that he had an undescended testicle. It may have been non-existent. The wartime song suggesting he had monorchism to the tune of Colonel Bogey was probably correct, although the medical term monarchism does not fit the meter was well as the original.

We know that Hitler’s rather dodgy doctor, Dr Morell gave him daily vitamin injections but added amphetamine and extracts of young bull’s testis. By 1943 he was having a further injection every second afternoon. In 1944 he told Mussolini “I was completely exhausted and after his injection I felt fresh again”.

By 1945 the injections had increased to five a day, which is not the usual meaning of five a day for your health. Inadvertently Dr Morell might have been on the right lines offering testosterone but not at the right dose or mixed with amphetamine. 

Does any of this explain his evil behaviour? It has been argued that without an interest in sex or family he was able to devote all his energies into politics. It is a pity he did not take up stamp collecting instead. As Professor King explained, we have to be very careful. A common expression nowadays is “it’s in my DNA”. This is to misunderstand DNA. It contains the basic code to build all life but is not the only factor which make us who we are. 

The play Romeo and Juliet can be performed as a traditional production by the Royal Shakespeare company or an updated version or with Leonardo DiCaprio on Verons Beach California with feuding gangs. Both use a similar script but appear very different. 

Equally two people may have similar DNA but with different backgrounds and a different upbringing become different people. Not everything is in your DNA. We are back to the nature and nurture debate. We are all affected by almost everything in our lives, upbringing, successes and failures.

Analysing DNA from historical figures can be interesting. Further studies on Richard III have shown than his male chromosome, Y, does not match his male relatives. Sometime in the past one of the Plantagenet “fathers” was not the real father. Since he lost the throne to Henry VII who had a very dubious claim, I do not think that this discovery affects Charles III.

Are the skeletons discovered in 1674 in the Tower of London really the Princes in the Tower possibly murdered on the instructions of Richard III? Why did Queen Victoria have the gene for haemophilia which she passed liberally around the crowned heads of Europe when there is no evidence of haemophilia in her ancestors?

Although we may have the technology to answer some difficult historical questions is it ethical? Shouldn’t we respect the last resting place of historical figures? We may end up digging up more than just the bones.