Some comments on the paper: Hans‐Joachim Scherer (1906–1945), pioneer in glioma research

The paper “Hans‐Joachim Scherer (1906–1945), Pioneer in Glioma Research” by Jürgen Peiffer and Paul Kleihues 8 is the first and only one describing the life of Dr Scherer in English and therefore is frequently cited. The sections “Biography” and “Personality” are solely based on a 2‐year earlier published work of Peiffer 7 which already at that time was criticized for its “lack of documentary evidence” 9. This is regrettable since in this way unjustified allegations have been put forward which prejudice Scherer's reputation. At the hand of citations from numerous written documents I will try to give a true and fair image of Scherer's personality and political affiliation.

In their paper, the authors mention that “in contrast to other political emigrants, Scherer's German passport was extended and after the invasion of Belgium by German troops, he was not arrested.” To avoid any misinterpretation it is necessary to give more details about Scherer's attitude and bearing.

In 1947, Robert Rössle testifies, “Dr. Hans‐Joachim Scherer worked with me as assistant at the Pathological Institute of the University, Berlin. … Among the assistants he was known as an explicit and with that an often imprudent opponent to the National Socialism” 10. In August 1933, Scherer was arrested by the Gestapo and kept for 3 days in custody because of “anti‐ Hitler opinion”; 2 weeks after his release he left Germany with a passport issued in Munich in February 1929 and valid for 5 years 2. He asked for an extension of the validity of this passport to spend his honeymoon in Switzerland in May 1936.

The reason why Scherer left Germany is reported by Ludo van Bogaert: “Dr. Hans Joachim Scherer left Germany not as Israelite, neither as politically unwanted, but because due to the political situation his personal sensitivity had turned for the worst and therefore any scientific work became impracticable for him.” 2. Consequently, Scherer can not be considered as a typical political emigrant. At his arrival in Belgium, he didn't ask for political asylum, but for a work permit and an identity card which allowed him to stay legally indefinitely in this country 2. He never was politically active but “his life was devoted exclusively to science” 20. After his release in 1933 the Gestapo expressed no objection against his further appointment at the Charité in Berlin (7, pp. 65/66), and in 1934, the police in Berlin replies to an inquiry of the Belgian Foreigners Police, that “nothing unfavourable is known concerning the medical doctor Hans Joachim Scherer” 2. In July 1940, he was allowed by the German Occupation Authority of Belgium and the North of France to be repatriated to Belgium from the French detention camp Saint‐Cyprien to which he had been deported after having been arrested by the Belgian police when the Germans invaded Belgium; hence, he was not considered as a criminal, neither as a threat for the Nazis.

Scherer obtained a Belgian work permit because it was utmost important for the Institute Bunge to secure his collaboration since it was not possible to find a Belgian physician with his scientific experience 2. Although his work permit was granted “for purely scientific activities” and Scherer was appointed at the Institute Bunge as “assistant for van Bogaert's scientific works” 2, he was also in charge of the routine activities of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy. These routine activities increased considerably in 1938 17, and in the autumn of that year Scherer applied for the position of “scientific assistant” of Prof Vernieuwe at the University Ghent. The fierce opposition of the university administrator, who didn't want a German at this position, delayed his appointment for several months 1.

Scherer understood that he needed the Belgian citizenship to obtain an academic position at a Belgian university. In February 1939, he sent a petition to the head of police in Berlin for release from his German citizenship. He wrote: “Undersigned, Dr. med. Hans‐Joachim Scherer, born on 14 May 1906 in Bromberg, county Posen, domiciled till 10 October 1933 in Berlin … since then living in Antwerp, Belgium; allows himself herewith to introduce a petition for release from German citizenship in order to obtain the Belgian nationality. Since 1 January 1934 he is working at the department for pathological anatomy of the Institute Bunge … and has been appointed officially since 1 January 1939 as medical chief of this department. To the further development of his professional activity, as well as for the acquisition of more favourable conditions for the soon to be signed new contract, the possession of the Belgian nationality would be of considerable importance; this is also particularly indispensable for the confirmation and regularization of his scientific collaboration at the State University of Ghent, where at present favourable conditions do occur.” 11

The allegation by the authors that Scherer “pursued his career with some ruthlessness” is totally unjustified since their imputation that Scherer attempted to usurp the position of van Bogaert at the Institute Bunge disagrees with the documented facts 6. Moreover, there exists not any written evidence which allows the authors to assert that van Bogaert dismissed Scherer. In 1938, the financial charge for the development and working of the Laboratory for Pathological Anatomy could no longer be borne by the Bunge Institute and a “Fonds de Dotation” was created to support the scientific research. In December 1945, van Bogaert writes: “In November 1940, … an arrangement was made with Mr Victor Bracht, Chairman of the Institute Bunge, so that our head of the laboratory Dr. H.J. Scherer and all our technical staff were officially re‐engaged on the 1^st of January 1941 by the ‘Fonds de Dotation’ ” 16. Moreover, Dr Van der Stricht, Director of the Institute Bunge, wrote: “The departure of Dr. H.J. Scherer and Miss M. Müsing in February 1941 forced Dr. Ludo van Bogaert to reorganize the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy under very difficult conditions” 18; and in 1942, van Bogaert writes to Ostertag: “Dr. Scherer has left us in April 1941.” 15

The authors refer to the intervention of Hugo Spatz to help van Bogaert to keep his position at the Institute Bunge, but this had nothing to do with Scherer. Spatz informs Hallervorden that he visited van Bogaert, and “came just in time to help him, since the plan existed to occupy his institute with soldiers” 13. van Bogaert writes in a necrology for Spatz: “I chiefly think … of all what I am indebted to him. … I was … in August 1940 back in Belgium, when Mr. Spatz … , paid me a visit, to ask me if he could help me or my family in one or the other way. … he defended my institute which was threatened by the occupation of the Luftwaffe; he has saved the institute.” (7, p. 21)

After leaving the Institute Bunge, Scherer continued his research at the University Ghent, where, in 1939, Frederic Thomas had equipped a laboratory with up‐to‐date appropriate apparatus for brain research 1. After repeated interrogations by the Gestapo 14, Scherer was ordered back to Germany. In January 1942, he writes to the rector of the University: “The German authorities have requested me to go to Magdeburg. I presume that my stay there will be only temporary. … As soon as I will be informed about the duration of this forced absence I will apprise you.” 1

If for the authors “politically, Scherer's life appears somewhat ambiguous,” this was not the opinion of his contemporaries. Indeed, in 1950 Viktor von Weizsäcker declares 21: “From 1942–1945 Dr. Hans‐Joachim Scherer was director of the anatomical department of the by me directed neurological research institute of the town Breslau. I was told, … , that in 1942 he was forced by the German occupation authorities in Belgium, to return from Belgium to Germany because there was a lack of physicians here. I invited him to accept the job in Breslau and so he did. He told me that the ‘Gauleiter für Auslanddeutschland im auswärtigen Amt’, Bohle, disapproved his nomination for political reasons. … In those days I also received the visit of two policemen from Breslau who warned me that Sch. was political suspect but at the same time they told me that an appointment of Scherer by me or the town of Breslau could be done. Moreover I was told by the national socialist ‘Dozentenführer’ Prof. Perwitschki (Prof. for otiology of the university) that Sch. was not allowed to become a professor nor that he was allowed to speak in the medical society. I don't know about other conflicts with the party or the police; and Sch., who during private talks let exist no doubt that he was an opponent of the national socialism, could without being disturbed work in my institute, where no intervention of the Party or Police took place, until he was summoned up as ‘Volkssturmarzt’. I also add that according to me Sch. was completely sincere and never has lied to me.”

Earlier, in 1947, von Weizsäcker wrote 20: “… Dr. Scherer was not only one of our most outstanding scholars but also an incorruptible character. As long as I knew him he never has participated in politics, but he was on this point neither an un‐political man since he hated the National Socialism and never allowed himself the smallest concession. From what precedes follows that he certainly was forced to fulfil the requirements the regime has imposed upon him.”

In a common document, Julius Hallervorden and Hugo Spatz certify that: “Scherer's antifascist conviction was commonly known in Germany and therefore his situation after his comeback was always difficult and threatened. … There is no doubt that during his activities in Breslau, Dr. Scherer, as a political suspect, was under constant surveillance by the Nazi authorities. At the end of the war he was one of the few younger colleagues who had not followed the Nazi party and for whom a better career was near at hand, when a sudden death took him by surprise” 4. Rössle too attests that Scherer, after his forced return to Germany, didn't change his opinion about the Nazis 10.

Contrary to what the authors affirm, Scherer never received the permission to publish in 1944 his monograph on comparative pathology of mammals 12. Viktor von Weizsäcker wrote 20: “In Breslau Dr. Scherer was able to finish his scientific lifework ‘the comparative Neurology’ and I was able to convince the ‘Verlag Georg Thieme’ in Leipzig to print this book. This publishing house also has accepted a risk because by an older order Dr. Scherer was not allowed to publish in Germany. To publish this book in another country was of course not possible. This happened in a period (1944) when the political police evidently no longer worried about such things.”

Hallervorden corroborated that “The publication was realized only because of the great scientific importance. … Not any political influence has played a role in this matter” 3. Moreover, in 1947, Dr Bruno Hauff, owner of the publishing company Georg Thieme, writes to Hallervorden: “I confirm willingly that I published the book of Dr. H.J. Scherer, ‘Vergleichende Pathologie des Nervensystems der Saügetiere’ only on account of its scientific significance. Decisive for me was the recommendation which you and Mr Prof. Dr. v. Weizsäcker had joined to the manuscript. I was able to print this book in the year 1944 because I had at my disposal the necessary paper from an old stock” 5.

The authors' statement that “Scherer's lack of communication with other scientists, is reflected by the fact that almost all of his publications were written by himself as the only author” is disproved by the facts. The activity reports I–IV of the Institute Bunge show that he had contacts with many other scientists. Moreover, Scherer published 57 papers (not 39 as mentioned by the authors) and 4 books 6 under very difficult conditions of work. More than one‐third of his papers are with at least one co‐author and during his short career of 15 years, he published with 14 different co‐authors. Unfortunately, his untimely death made an end to a fecund scientific career. In November 1945, when Viktor von Weizsäcker learned about Scherer's death, he wrote to Mrs Scherer: “… I don't have to tell you that as a scientist and as a human being Dr. Scherer has been for me one of the few rejoicing and fruitful experiences during the Breslau years. … I still can add to this that Scherer's personal attitude in one for him very difficult time, always seemed to me not only comprehensible but also sound. He had a very strong ethical underlying principle, from which he never departed for any personal profit, and for which he has made more than one sacrifice” 19.

Supporting information

References 3–5, 10–11, 14, 19–21 are available as supplementary material.