It is interesting. I thought the scientists did a good job fully explaining what the results did and didn't say.
I also thought the criticisms from other scientists were overwrought. They smacked of virtue signaling to justify what I suspect is really professional envy. IOW, I wish I'd been the one to analyze Hitler's DNA...but you were, so I'm going to impugn your moral fiber.
Hitler's DNA showed that he was more prone to autism, ADHD and schizophrenia than 99% of the population. The researchers clearly and repeatedly state that a genetic predisposition isn't a diagnosis and that DNA can't tell whether an individual person (in this case, Adolf Hitler) actually had the mental conditions to which he was genetically predisposed.
Yet other scientists say that bringing it up at all is a disservice to people who do have autism. That autistic people "deserve better." That the research shouldn't have been done at all.
That's an interesting comment because the DNA also shows that Hitler had a genetic disorder that leads to under-developed sexual organs. That finding actually is diagnostic, yet I note that none of the criticisms stated that people who have that disorder today "deserve better."
While not a diagnosis in Hitler's specific case (which the researchers repeatedly emphasize), omitting a finding of propensity to mental conditions that significant (more prone than 99% of the general population) would be a disservice to the research.
We should learn from things and people that are distasteful or downright evil. What better way to avoid or prevent them in the future? It beats running away in screaming -- but virtuous -- ignorance. Or hiding a legitimate finding because it might be uncomfortable.
Kudos to the researchers!
