Assignment 3: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Before 1951, the ability to grow cells derived from animal tissue remained elusive. While cells derived could grow for a short period of time, they ignominiously died and could not be propagated. This changed in 1951 when a woman by the name of Henrietta Lacks was biopsied for a painful tumor and later died. Cells derived from her cervical cancer were found to thrive in an artificial environment. This gave rise to the birth of biotechnology and the techniques learned from propagating these cells would eventually lead to advancements in finding a Polio vaccine. For this assignment, listen to the Radiolab Podcast.

Post a response that addresses the following:

  • First indicate the effect of voices heard in describing the historical events. Did they move you in any way?
  • There’s a controversy over the ownership of the cells.
  • Do you think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent?
  • Do you think it was ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent?
  • Do you feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
  • Do you feel Henrietta’s racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
  • Henrietta’s cells were freely passed along around the world. It is said that she is immortal because of this. Because John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine, do you feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family?
  • Read through the following article about hairy cell leukemia. In this case, the University of California and David Golde received money from the sale of the cells derived from this biopsy. Is this fair independent of the outcome of the court case?
  • This assignment is due December 18th.

18 thoughts on “Assignment 3: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

  1. The effects of the voices heard on the radio in describing the historical events, I must say kept in interested. At first it seemed as though they were taking things as a joke, but when the women and the doctor started to speak I became for interested because of how dramatic and unethical the story really was. They did affect me on the means of getting a hold and a grip on my attention for the most part. IN the case that you are helping someone or trying to save their life and even the lives of others in the future, I do think it was appropriate to take the cells from the biopsy for personal research to help others, not on terms of personal gain. I on the other hand to not agree with the doctors choice to put her personal info as far as her name and other details of her case, those things could have been kept private. It was highly unethical for the lab assistant to go into the mourge to retrieve more cells from the corps. The body was dead, it should have been able off limits because of the bacteria that was growing after the death of a human being and should have been left alone to rest in peace. Her racial background I believe played a significant role in the issue, because of it she may have been less respected and taken more advantage off. Especially during those time in the 1950s where racism was still abundant and taking place, and in her case being a women couldn’t have made it any worse. As a doctor in those times, I hope he would have looked past the aspect of race in order to provide the best possible care for his patient. Economical issues also played greatly in the removal of her cells without any previous consent. She most likely wasn’t at the best economical stand point in her life, and the doctor couldn’t care less about it. She had no real money so in the end her retaliation would have been subtle. Whether or not John Hopkins made money from Ms. Lask’s cells or not is not a factor. The disrespect and the misleading factors done to her body is enough to compensate her family for years to come. Form an ethical stand point Mr. Hopkins should have lost his license and should have been forced never practice medical science again.

    • With the matter of Moore v. Regents of The University of California it was totally unfair to release the individuals body parts for any type of research . Even though I understand that Moore did not sign any papers stating he wanted his body to cremated he on the other hand did not state he wanted his body to be donated to science fair is fair. It was obvious Golde was only trying to make profit and in no way was trying to have other benefit from it he was wasn’t it was a selfish act.

  2. The effect of the voices which was heard was factorial and the voices sounded like they were excited to talk about the Henrietta Lacks story. One of the women researched about Lacks for ten years and wanted to tell the story for a while. The voices moved me in a way in which I became more interested in finding out about what they had to say.

    The controversy over the ownership of the cells was described as many scientists wanting to be the next famous scientist who grew human cells outside of the human being to experiment on the cells and see if they grow or die.

    In my opinion, it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent because if a doctor has the chance to experiment with the cells and develop vaccinations due to how the cells react then many people may benefit from this. Especially, if taking the cells led to the discovery polio vaccines and chemotherapy.

    It was definitely unethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue in my opinion especially without the family’s consent. This was unethical behavior because a person who has already died should not be bothered with but if you had the family’s consent then it would be fine because the doctors and scientists needed more cells to do more research and it should be fine if the family agrees with it.

    Henrietta’s economical status most likely factored into the removal of her cells because if she was financially unstable, doctors would not be sued for taking her cells without consent. Back in the day, a person could not do much if they were broke, so doctors took advantage of this concept.

    In my opinion, Henrietta’s racial background did not factor into the removal of her cells because the doctor could have taken the cells from any person with a different racial background.

    The Lacks family should receive compensation from the fields of Science and Medicine even though John Hopkins did not make any profit from Lack’s cells, the cells that he took were still cells from her body and belonged to her.

    It is definitely unfair to Moore that he was not informed adequately about where his cells and organs would go and that Golde would make profit off of Moore’s cells. The court has decided that Moore would not win the case because he has signed a consent before Golde had done any surgeries, removed cells, as well as taking blood, and his sperm. Golde seemed to only care about making profit and would not let Moore go to any other doctor besides Golde. Golde knew that he would be benefiting from Moore’s cells.

  3. The voices and their effect had significance in this mainly because it went from jokingly and playful to a more serious tone especially in the beginning. Because of this I can’t say it moved me, however it really kept me interested.

    The controversy surrounding the ownership of the cells were basically because every time scientists tried to grow human cells, they would die. However, Henrietta’s cells grew which was valuable to many scientists.

    I would say it was appropriate for them to take cells from a biopsy without consent because scientists knew they were onto something and having something valuable like that led to breakthroughs in science and medicine. I think this is the main reason it was okay without consent because it worked out in the end for a bigger and better cause.

    No it wasn’t ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue and retrieve more cells from an already decomposing body. Furthermore, without consent made this even worse. However, I think it was the right thing to do because there was a chance if they did ask for consent, it would be denied and these further experiments and findings could have never occurred

    I feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells without consent. I also feel like the doctors/scientists did things their way and kind of disrespected Henrietta and her family by doing this. This might have not been the case if Henrietta was wealthy. Her racial background also might have played a factor in this without consent because after all, she was African American. This took place in the 1950’s so African Americans weren’t respected fully.

    I think the Lacks family deserves compensation because all of this was done without consent. She basically lived on even after death because of her cells and this led to science and medicine breakthroughs. Even though John Hopkins didn’t receive any money from this, these cells belonged to Henrietta.

    I think it’s unfair that Moore didn’t win the case and had no rights to his cells and the profit that came with this. Golde made a lot of money from this case which was clearly the real motive for him. The article says that there was speculation about Golde knowing he could have made a profit and had not revealed this to Moore at the time of the consent. I think if Moore knew this, he would have acted more strongly towards the consent and having his own cells and body fluids used for financial gain.

    .

  4. Appeal was initially brought upon by the voices of Jad Abumrad, Robert Krulwich and Rebecca Skloot. Speaking on behalf of Henrietta Lack’s story with such a vague introduction that everything seemed to come off as a cliffhanger; i was immediately intrigued . Their emphasis on the excitement they felt on reporting the story made me question its significance.

    Innovations in any scientific field are often followed by controversy as many try to attribute responsibility for them. The case of Henrietta Lack’s cells was just like any other addition to the contribution of evolving science. Many were yearning to invent/discover “the next big thing” and wanted to be responsible for the achievements in brought.

    Personally, I consider the concept of removing ones cells without consent for scientific research fairly feasible. This extraction is not done with bad intentions; contrarily it is done for the benefit of society. Having the chance to experiment with something so delicate and not easily attainable for the development of medicine should be taken advantage of, regardless of the consequences. I believe the question of it being appropriate to extract cells from a biopsy without consent has a lot to do with the time period this procedure (Henrietta Lack) took place in. The 50’s was a post war period where science was striving in the U.S. Many were resolute in contributing to major scientific forces, not necessarily for the recognition but mainly for the evolution of biological science as a whole and improvement in the medical field. Consent of experimentation was not something that was a main priority. Had this been a modern day occurrence, possibly due to the fact that we are a far more liberal and obnoxious society, the results would have been drastically different, approval would not be as easily attained.

    I believe the idea of it being unethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve extra cells from the corpse of Henrietta Lack without the consent of her family has a lot to do with religious beliefs. Considering that science and religion seem to be on opposite sides of the turn table, I understand why it may come off as a heretical action to proceed in such a manner. I also understand why it should be acceptable, seeing that if it came down to it, the family would probably be against the removal of Lack’s cells. The result of this would be detrimental to the novelty regarding cells.

    I do in fact believe that Lack’s financial situation contributed to the removal of her cells without consent. I don’t necessarily believe that had she been wealthy the extraction of her cells would not occur, but I do believe that it would be thought over. First off, she probably would not be a patient of the same doctor had she had a “good amount” of money, second it would be more difficult to remove her cells without anyone’s knowledge.

    I don’t believe that Henrietta’s racial background played a giant role in the removal of her cells. The doctor’s may have thought it was easier to take them from her as opposed to a non colored individual without consent because no one would seek justice and have as much success had they found out what was going on, but overall I believe they would have taken the cells from any individual.

    The Lack’s family should be able to feel compensated just by knowing the fact that their family member played such a large role in scientific production. Considering that they were of religious background, I would find it hypocritical if they had sought to gain money from the situation. I would not feel it is wrong to give them a physical repayment, I just do not feel it is necessary. Although in today’s world, I find it hard to imagine that someone would generously do such a thing without seeking a settlement.

    I believe that the case of Moore v. Regents of The University of California is an unjust example of using an individuals body parts for scientific research. Although I understand the significance of the study, I believe that Moore should have had a more acute say in what happens to the various parts of his body used in the procedures. Had he been explained more elaborately what was being done with the cells and organs derived from his body and he had signed the consent regardless, it would be an entirely different situation. Golde, used advantage on Moore knowing that he was oblivious to the situation.

  5. The effects of voices that I heard about the historical events were very effective. It did move me in a way because of the way they were talking about the Henreitta Lacks tumor story. The research they had about the story made me more interested in what happened to Lacks.

    The controversy over the ownership of the cells were told by the scientists who wanted to be the most talked about scientist that grew cells on the outside of the person to research on the cells to see what they could find out about the cells that grew and or died.

    From my point of view, it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent because it gives the doctor or scientist a chance to observe how cells react and research on it to see how they can be help other people with this kind of illness.

    It was definatelly unethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve more cells from the corpse without the family’s consent. This is very unethical because the assistance should at least ask permission before he goes to retrieve more cells instead of just taking them without permission from the family members.

    Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent because if she was unstable, then doctors would have the chance to take the cells without any consent without the families permission.

    Henrietta’s racial background didn’t factor into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent because they would have took cells from anybody with different racial backgrounds and that wouldn’t matter to them at all.

    I think that the Lacks family should receive compensation from the fields of science and medicine. John Hopkins didn’t receive any kind of profit from the cells but they were still from Lacks’s body and that is why the Lacks family should receive compensation from the fields of science and medicine.

    It was unfair to Moore that he was not told about where his cells were going. Golde on the other hand was making profit off of Moore’s cells. He only seemed to care about making money off of Moore’s cells than taking care of Moore.

  6. I find it interesting that some have come up with the concept of financial retribution from “Science”. Is it generally believed that there is a general governing body of scientists that have money to hand out for such cases? When we speak of responsibility of compensation, you often ask a specific organization or person. In this case, holding Johns Hopkins University responsible is understandable, but not the field of study.

  7. The effect of the voices which was heard in Radio lab Podcast sound it like they were excited and interested to talk about Henrietta Lacks’ tumor. There was this research technician who did research on Henrietta Lacks for ten years and was curious to find out more about her tumor and how the pain felt. The voice on the radio moved me to learn more about the tumor and what happened but I was scared because of the background music that was played.

    The controversy of the ownership of the cell was between the scientists who want to be the next top scientists in the world by growing the cell on a dish to see if it would die. This is the biggest thing that can ever happen in years and every scientist wants to lay hand on it.

    Well, I don’t think it was right to take cells from biopsy for research without someone’s permission because there is always a friend or family member that they can find to take permission from even if the person is not alive. Come to think of it, I don’t want some scientist to take some cell from my body without any permission from my family members or friends even if it means to save the world. Moreover, when they took her cells to do research, she was alive and therefore they could have asked her permission and they had chance to ask.

    Furthermore, going to the morgue to get more cells without family consent is going way too far. Some people might think it is okay because of the benefits that we can get but, I think they need to get family consent. A family member needs to understand what they are doing to the dead body. For example if I was one of the Lacks family members I wouldn’t appreciate what they did because sometimes religions come first more than research.

    Lacks’s racial background was the most factored because she wasn’t rich or anything, if she was rich then, they wouldn’t have done this. The doctors wouldn’t have ignored her when she came to them for help. They would have been afraid that she would sue them if they didn’t take care of her properly. Another reason was that racist sentiment at that time. Colored people didn’t have the same rights as white person would therefore, they didn’t bother to take permission or at least tell the family members what they are doing until the end. Basically, Lacks background factored most for that reason and the doctors took advantage of her.

    The Lacks family should receive compensation from the fields of Science and Medicine because they did something without asking and then, later admitting that they did it. I understand that John Hopkins did not make any profit out of it but they did something without telling anyone in the family for the goods and not only that, they took something that belongs to someone.

    This is completely not fair because Moore did not understand what would happened in the future and Golde did not bother to explain deeply what they are going to do with his removal cells, blood and his sperm. Golde was more interested in making profit therefore he lured him to sign the consent before he gave him the other consent that says that any parts of the cell line should be removed which Moore did not sign. This is just prove that doctors don’t care about the patient if they did then, they would have referred Moore to a different doctor to make sure that their checking was right instead of thinking of making money and they wouldn’t stop Moore from going to different doctors.

  8. The effect of the voices heard in describing the historical events was very interesting because when I started to listen to the radio, not known what it would be about, I thought that the situation was not that serious. The people that were talking in the introduction made everything seem like a joke since they were so vague in what they were saying. But then, it made me more interested into listening to the rest of the radio lab because I wanted to see what exactly they were talking about since I was a little confuse.

    The controversy over the ownership of the cells has to do with the fact that scientist have been trying to grow a cell on a dish. Since that never happened before when the case of Henrietta Lacks opened and the doctor discovered the cells were growing, it was just an amazing thing in their sight. So when it comes to the ownership, no scientist had a claim over it which is the reason why they give them away for free.

    Honestly, taking the cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent was not appropriate. In general, when a person take something from someone and take advantage of it is not really fair. But when it comes to the Henrietta Lacks’ case, I feel like it was not that much of a big deal, since it lead to a positive result. Even if the doctor saw that her cells were growing while she was still alive, if they had went and ask her for her permission maybe she would not have agree for scientist to experience on her cells or maybe she would’ve. So her not knowing about it benefitted the doctors in that case. Also during that time, a person’s consent was not really a priority.

    Taking the cells of Henrietta Lacks without consent was already enough. I think that it is totally unethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue and retrieve more cells from the corpse without family consent. If they had at least went to the family and explain to them the situation and let them know that they needed more cells from Henrietta’s body to continue their experience. Maybe the family would not have a problem with them doing that or maybe they would have, but regardless of the family’s response the lab assistants had no right to go to someone’s morgue and retrieve more cells specially without consent.

    I feel like Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells in a way because if it was a rich person, the doctors would have probably step out of the focus on just the positive effects that it would have on the world as a whole and take their time to explain it to any family members or that individual if they were still alive because they probably did not want to get sued. But with the case of Henriettas’ the scientist did not seem to care much about asking because they did not have money to take action if anything.

    I feel like Henrietta’s racial background was one of the most factored because during that time, colored people did not have the same rights as the whites. And it was not too long ago that they were enslaved so the racism and the hate that these scientist might of had on colored people might have played a great role in this. This contributing to her economic status I believe are the two main factors that cause these scientist to not even bother asking for some sort of permission.

    I think that the Lacks’ family should receive compensation from the science and medicine field because this was firstly done without their consent until way later and if it wasn’t for Henrietta Lacks’ cells, then a myriad of what scientist know today about cells and the medications that they are now able to make based on the study of the hela cells would not have been available. Which in conclusion impacted on the world positively.

    This is really unfair to Moore that he was was not really informed about his body cells and organ. In the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, David Golde did not have the right to take Moore’s cells and body organs to make profit off of it and having Moore sign the consent without enough information of what he was going to really do with it, was really unfair and vicious of him. The court decision, was also unfair because they should’ve also look at the fact that Moore wasn’t really informed about it, but since they are based on proof also, they just decided that Moore would not win the case.

  9. Christina Bloomfield
    Biology open lab
    1. First indicate the effect of voices heard in describing the historical events. Did they move you in any way?
     The voices indicate importance in a humorous manner, honestly when I started listening to the radio article I did not feel any type of emotions towards the situations.

    2. There’s a controversy over the ownership of the cells.
     To me there was no controversy because the hospital signed the contract with the scientist to research any cells that comes to the hospital. The family members did not know about the situation until 25 years later so I don’t think Henrietta children wanted any part of this, in fact, they did not understand full about the whole situation.

    3. Do you think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent?
     Yes I think it was very inappropriate even though the lab assistance was doing her job she should have considered that this was an actual person and even if the person is dead it’s not right to take something from the corpse without consulting with the family members. I think showed little respect about the person’s body and especially to the family members.

    4. Do you think it was ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent?
     As said earlier the lab assistant have no morals at all because she knew it was not right to bother a dead body for cells without notifying an of the family members to inform them of what is happening

    5. Do you feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
     I believed if they had notified a family member they would profit off the cells considering that her economical background was not

    6. Do you feel Henrietta’s racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
     No not really I don’t this the racial background have anything to do with it. I believe this can happen to anyone due to selfishness and hunger for recognition.

    7. Henrietta’s cells were freely passed along around the world. It is said that she is immortal because of this. Because John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine, do you feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family?
     I do believe the family should be rewarded because John Hopkins was very disrespectful for sending his lab assistance to the corpse to retrieve more cell samples. Which he then distribute it world wild. It is also very sad to hear the daughter speak of her mother, when the reports interviewed her she was very clue less of what was happening and why after all these years they would come back to search for the family.

     After that no one took the time to explain fully, what was happening and why was it so necessary for her mother’s cell to distribute all over the world. I think they should sue the sat hospital who gave the cell to john Hopkins because Henrietta did not sign any documents, that state it was OK distribute any part of her body. A hospital should be strictly confidential when it comes on to their patient’s information. This is a definite violation to Henrietta and everyone who cared for her.

    8. Read through the following article about hairy cell leukemia. In this case, the University of California and David Golde received money from the sale of the cells derived from this biopsy. Is this fair independent of the outcome of the court case?
     I think the court decision is fear because Moore does deserves a legal say over his own organ surgeon totally violated his rights and decisions towards his organ. Even though Moore did not sign any legal document saying he wanted his organ to be cremated; he sure did not sign anything that give the doctor the right to make money off the organ.

  10. 1) First indicate the effect of voices heard in describing the historical events. Did they move you in any way?
    When I clicked play and began to hear these various voices, I was a tad bit confused in terms of the tone of their voices. However, after giving it a few seconds, I was introduced to the topic of the conversation, famous tumors, and it was rather alluring. I stumbled across “the immortal life of Henrietta lacks”, to find it was a piece written by a journalist, Rebecca skloot, who has studied this case for 10 years. After being given such a general overview of I was curious to know a little more.
    2) There’s a controversy over the ownership of the cells.
    The controversy that took place was basically that these scientists had the urge to be the scientist to grow cells outside of a person. Pretty much there was the will to be known for this new finding.
    3) Do you think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent?
    On many levels, I understand that taking cells from this biopsy was pretty much the stepping stone and birth of new finding however, to take it without consent, on a more moral based perspective I don’t think that it was right. However I do feel if it hadn’t happened a lot of what we have learned from this would have never been put out in the world so on a scientific scale I suppose it had more pros then cons.
    4) Do you think it was ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent?
    I personally feel that it was unethical for the lab assistant to take more cells from the morgue without the family’s consent. I feel taking an excessive amount would require at the very minimal consent of the family.
    5) Do you feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent? Do you feel Henrietta’s racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
    I do feel that lack’s economic status did play a role in extraction of her cells without consent. I mean lack’s wasn’t a very wealthy individual, and she was colored at that. I mean at that time race was a big deal in terms of equality and opportunity. I don’t feel if she was white or even of a wealthy individual that any of this would take place without some means of consent.
    6) Henrietta’s cells were freely passed along around the world. It is said that she is immortal because of this. Because John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine, do you feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family?
    I do believe that regardless of the fact, that john Hopkins didn’t receive any money, the lacks family should receive compensation because they took cells from what belongs to them, without their consent at that and I mean anything that comes out of that should in a way go back to them.

    7) Read through the following article about hairy cell leukemia. In this case, the University of California and David Golde received money from the sale of the cells derived from this biopsy. Is this fair independent of the outcome of the court case?
    In a situation like this case, I feel that was completely unfair. I find it extremely wrong that an individual, Golde, appears so focused on profits as opposed to a more moral approach. I feel that Moore should have had some knowledge as to what was being done with and where his cells and organs were going. I understand that Moore signed the consent but he wasn’t well informed of the full and totally procedure that I’m positive Golde was well aware of …

  11. 1. First indicate the effect of voices heard in describing the historical events. Did they move you in any way?
    My attention was immediately caught when I heard the topic, “Tumors” because of the fact that my close friend died from a tumor.

    2. Do you think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent?
    I do think that it was inappropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent, however it was a reasonable research because according to one of the observers, this was a tumor that he had never seen before. The research of the cells that were taken from the body would be useful to others so that scientist could study it in the lab to try and create a vaccine for this disease

    3. Do you think it was ethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent?
    Again, I do not think it was ethical for the lab assistant to have retrieve even more cells from the corpse without the family’s consent being that they didn’t have permission the previous time. However, I do believe that the study and research of this disease are important things that people needed to be aware of especially due to the fact that it was a new disease that even scientist haven’t heard of.

    4. Do you feel Henrietta’s economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
    Maybe scientist were a bit less concerned about the consent of the family because of her economical status, especially in the 50’s where there were racial wars happening and people with color, playing a role of much lower class than white people.

    5. Do you feel Henrietta’s racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent?
    As I stated in my previous answer, I do believe that part of not being concerned of consent might have been because of her race due to the racial situations that were taking place during that time.

    6. Henrietta’s cells were freely passed along around the world. It is said that she is immortal because of this. Because John’s Hopkins did not make any money and aided greatly to the fields of Science and Medicine, do you feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the Lacks family?
    Out of respect, I feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the lacks family. They have tampered with a family member that they loss, without consent. You can just imagine how the family felt about it and the least they could do is provide a gratitude or something of value that obviously cant replace a family member, but can show a kind heart.

    7. Read through the following article about hairy cell leukemia. In this case, the University of California and David Golde received money from the sale of the cells derived from this biopsy. Is this fair independent of the outcome of the court case?
    To me, it seemed that Golde only was concerned about a profit that he would have made in the end. It is understandable that there weren’t any statements from Moore stating hid desires for his remainders, but to make a profit off of a dead person without any other care is also UNETHICAL. In addition, it was very suspicious how It wasn’t recommend for Moore to see more than one doctor.

  12. 1.)
    The voices heard in the radio pod cast were very thrilled to make this pod-cast to explain the growth of cells. There voices were very energetic, unlike most-pod cast I have listen before. Because their voices were so enthusiastic, and they had some background music, it made me pay attention better unlike most pod-casts.
    2.)
    The controversy over the owner ship of cells were, everyone in the scientific community wanted to know who will be the next scientist that will come up with living cell growth outside the human body for research.
    3.)
    In my opinion, it was appropriate to take cells form a biopsy for personal research without consent because it would speed up the development in creating new vaccines to treat tumors, and in this case creating a “Polio Vaccine”.
    4.)
    NO, it is unethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without the family’s consent. Families should have the right to know that you are retrieving more cells for further research because its their family member that is dead not the scientist. They had no right to do what they did in 1950, even though it was for scientific research. The family want the dead family member to “rest in peace” not dug up to retrieve more samples.
    5)
    Yes I believe that because Henrietta economical status factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes. Because of her economical status she would have to agree and proceed what the doctors say they going to do regardless. Who else would she have turned to, to help her?
    6)
    Yes I believe during the 1950s (racism) Henrietta racial background factored into the removal of her cells for such purposes without consent.
    7)
    Well in my opinion I believe that the fields of Science and Medicine should have also provide compensation to the Lacks family because it’s their family member cells that John Hopkins is experimenting with.
    8)
    In this situation it was unfair to Moore because he was not entirely explained by Golde what he was going to do. But regardless, he did sign the consent form approving to Golde procedures and resulting in Golde making a profit off his organs.

  13. The effects of the voices that was heard on the radio lab podcast sounded like they were excited to talk about the Henrietta Lacks Tumor’s story. It moved me in a way because they caught my attention and made me actually want to hear more about this story in depth.

    There is controversy over the ownership of the cells. The controversy over the ownership of the cells, i believe was described as many scientists wanting to talk about the scientists that grew the cells on the outside of the person to research on the cells.

    In my opinion, it was inappropriate to take cells from a biopsy research without someone’s consent. It just isn’t fair because that person might have a friend or family members or a spouse that can give their consent whether the person is alive or not.

    It was unethical for the lab assistant to go into the morgue to retrieve MORE cells from the corpse without a family’s consent because the person has family. Why not just do things respectfully and lawfully and just ask for the permission? The current circumstances of the person as being deceased doesn’t give the okay to do just as you please.

    I feel that Henrietta’s economical status did in fact factor into the removal of her cells. If she was financially stable, the doctor and assistant would have been paying for the price for retrieving cells without her consent.

    Henrietta’s racial background, in my opinion did not factor into the removal of her cells. I believe this because this in my opinion is just the procedure; taking cells without getting permission from a family member and so forth. They could’ve took it from anyone that had a different racial background.

    The Lack’s family should definitely receive compensation from the fields of science and medicine although John Hopkins didn’t profit from it. The cells were in still from lack’s body, also they performed this without permission. This influences my feelings about the Lack’s family getting compensation because not only do they have a dead family member but they took something from that family member without even respecting the Lack’s family enough to ask for permission.

    In the case University of California and David Golde shows that it is unreasonable and unjust for individuals to use people’s body parts for their scientific research. In the case Golde, it is viewed that there was more concern about the profits rather than the moral approach. The court decision on the contrary was fair because Moore did deserve a say over his own surgeon. I believe they totally went against his rights as a person; he had all right to say something. He did not sign any papers that gave the doctors the right to make a profit over his organ.

  14. 1 the effect on the voices was great it kept me focus on listening to the story. it moved me in a way where every time i would hear a change in the voice pitch, i would keenly listen ever more closely to hear what important point was about to be said.

    2 i would assume that their would have been a controversy over the ownership of the cells because of the great achievement that it came with from the cells. but that should have been of focus at all as to who has ownership but the focus should be on what other creative ideas can this lead too.

    3 no i do not think it was appropriate to take cells from a biopsy for personal research without consent. that was just plain wrong even if it was for a good cause.

    4 no i do not think it was ethical for the lab assistant to do that. i believe that was total disrespect and no regards for the family .

    5 i do feel that Henrietta’s economical status played a major role in the removal of her cells. if she had been more financially stable the consent to do anything to her body would of been enforced way more.

    6 I think Henrietta’s racial background did factored into the removal of her cells simply because of the time period that this procedure took place. During those time full equality was not really around so that off course would impact others actions.

    7 I do feel that they are obligated to provide compensation to the lacks family. the reason for that simply because if it was not for Henrietta’s cells would they have come across any other cells like those. An it led to a great achievement in the field of science all because of Henrietta’s cells.

    8 I believe that the case was just completely unjust. Moore was tricked an that was just uncalled for an unfair. An Golde knew exactly what he had plan from the start an how unjust his plan was.

  15. The way they spoke came off as sarcastic too me, with all the laughing and snickering but it converted into a serious concerned tone. When they began to tell the story about Henrietta that’s when it finally captivated me to continue listening. They didn’t move me in any significant way.

    I don’t think it was completely appropriate but with the outcomes of the whole situation, it was worth it. It wasn’t correct to take advantage and test runs using her body only because Henrietta was dead. The damage is done and people should just respect Henrietta for all the research advances, she suffered a tremendous amount of pain due to cancer but those cancer cells made a huge difference in the world.

    It defiantly wasn’t ethical, the lab assistant cared about the ground-breaking discovery they were making and didn’t bother to think twice that this was once a person with opinions, feelings and a family. It was a selfish act.

    No, I don’t think Henrietta’s economic status or racial background had anything to do with the removal of her cells, I think they removed her cells without consent simply because she was dead and obviously had no say in the matter.

    I don’t think they’re obligated, if they want to give the Lacks family money it should be as a gratitude for Henrietta. If it wasn’t for her they probably wouldn’t have made so much progress in the studies of cells.

    It isn’t fair at all, Moore signed a contract that he probably didn’t read, he trusted his doctor and his doctor took advantage. Moore didn’t know where his organs were going, that they were doing this for profit and not for his best interest of health.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *