Tuesday, March 2, 2010

A Piece of HeLa Pie

The story of Henrietta Lacks, the woman whose “immortal” cells would help scientists develop life-changing vaccinations, has been told through a variety of mediums for the past fifty years. In “HeLa” Hannah Landecker provides her own account of the infamous cell line, focusing on the scientific experimentation of Henrietta’s cancerous cells. Although I found the chronology of the scientific processes concerning the cells interesting, I was more struck by the background story of Henrietta Lacks. The New York Times article, “A Lasting Gift to Medicine That Wasn’t Really a Gift” written by Denise Grady satisfied my yearn for biographical information by personifying the ever multiplying cells, ultimately speaking about the Lacks family, and spawning questions concerning fairness, respect and ownership.

The most intriguing portion of the article for me was about the “tissue rights” and how race and social status have become as much a part of the HeLa story as the discoveries made by the medicinal community. I think that it is absolutely mind-blowing that we live in an age where money has become such a driving force that now it is necessary to patent your own removed tissue in the chance that scientists will make new discoveries from it. In the case of the Lacks family, they never generated any profit from their mother’s cells, which could have been greatly beneficial for them because they never knew that their mother had become a scientific golden ticket. The scientific community, like Landecker’s article is more concerned about detaching the face from the science (giving the cells a clean slate) and working towards servicing the greater good. Although this is a valiant effort and I do appreciate everything that medicine has done, it still is unsettling to me that scientists can disregard their patients to experiment. Those cells belong to someone and I feel that it is completely fair if that person and their family receives some of the profits no matter their race or social affluence. People have become more money savvy and scientists need to recognize that although their work is greatly valued, we unfortunately have created a society that only sees dollar signs and will act accordingly to ensure money in their pocket. I am sure that the next Henrietta Lacks is already taking notes because she knows to expect a hefty piece of the pie.

2 comments:

  1. I think you raise an interesting point. Is money the driving force in this case? I feel that in some cases, such as this one in particular, that demanding the profit from your DNA is something that many would find profitable; that, in this case, Henrietta Lack's family may be glad that she has been connected personally with the cell line. However, I feel that this topic also melts in with one we discussed as a class earlier. When does DNA fingerprinting become too much? Should HeLa's contributer have ever been introduced as a person to the public? Or should we have never learned of her identity. I know this is a stretch off your point, Raya, but I think it kind of coincides...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Scientists make the argument that forcing researchers to go through all of these bioethical hoops would slow down the progress of science by miring experiments in legal disputes. Their attempt is to see human tissue samples as part of a global commons or collective resource for humankind, though Raya correctly points to the disparities in benefits for the patients and experts involved.

    ReplyDelete