THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTied and to which conclusions one may come.Only the means by which research is conducted is subject to limitations,since research may not employ methods that compromise therights of others—such as experiments on humans or endangering theenvironment. If it is forbidden to science to formulate new theses or toattempt to refute existing theories, however controversial these attemptsand their conclusions might be, or if it is forbidden to science touse certain arguments or to come to certain conclusions, or to publishscientific conclusions in order to subject them to indispensable publicscrutiny and scientific criticism, then one throws the fundamental rightto freedom of scientific research out the window entirely, because thecritical examination of standing theories and paradigms through seriousattempts to refute them, and the publication thereof, is the heart ofscience, or even of human knowledge in general. 558The ConsequencesThe declaration of the Ministry of Justice given above is clearlyunconstitutional and one may hope that the German Federal ConstitutionalCourt will say so at some point in the case of Grundlagen zurZeitgeschichte. Of course, it is not likely to do so under present conditions,since in a similar case of Federal book-burning in the early1980s, the German Federal Constitutional Court itself made a statementin the sense of the Ministry of Justice’s statement above. 559Therefore one cannot avoid the conclusion that the present situationin Germany is as follows:1. With respect to the core of the Holocaust claim—gas chambers,the National Socialist’s intention to annihilate the Jews, and thecarrying out such a program—there can be only one predeterminedconclusion under penalty of law.2. The most important condition to the free pursuit of science wouldthen be suspended, that which states: Every thesis must be subjectedto the strictest attempts at refutation and must be refutablein theory and in practice. Neither may any conclusion of scientificresearch be prescribed nor proscribed (cf. Article 3(3) of German558 Cf. Karl R. Popper, Objektive Erkenntnis, Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 4 1984.559 On Wilhelm Stäglich, op. cit. (note 41): German Federal Constitutional Court, ref., ref. 1 BvR408f./83, reprinted in Wigbert Grabert, Geschichtsbetrachtung als Wagnis, Grabert, Tübingen1984, pp. 287ff.328