Do Henrietta Lacks' cells illustrate something?
Rebecca Skoot is making a big splash these days with her book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. It's about an African American woman from Baltimore, a mother of five with modest means, whose cervical carcinoma was sampled in 1951 and then used to develop the well known cell line, HeLa cells. She has long since passed away, but the cell line lives on and is widely used in research. Turns out, this important cell line was originated without her knowledge or consent. In fact, the existence of the cell line was a surprise to her relatives, long after she had passed away. The story raises questions of our ownership of medical samples, which Skloot explores in several fascinating ways.
As many of you probably know, HeLa cells have been a cell culture mainstay at least since when I was in graduate school. There have been about fifty years of use without any questions being raised. A million-dollar industry arose from these cells. They were essential, for example, in the development of the polio vaccine.Seeing a book like this, written by a woman, makes me wonder--do women get interested in different topics in the history of science than men? Skloot may well shake up how this country deals with informed consent for medical samples. Isn't it interesting that these cells have been around for so long with little or no ethical discussion, and it's a woman who decided to write about them from this perspective?
What do you think?
A. Women generally do have a different emphasis in science than men. They are more concerned with the social impacts.
B. The fact that the book is written by a woman is of no consequence, it doesn't say anything about women in science and their perceptions.
C. I can't decide.
I am glad there will be a movie to reach a wider audience, but I'm more the book type. I just got it for my Kindle and look forward to reading all the thoughts that won't show in the movie.
cheers,
Laura
That's great! I meant to get the book, but now I can just wait for the movie. I'm more into movies :-)
Looks like the story will also be immortalized in an HBO movie--now that Oprah and Alan Ball are interested in it...
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118019154.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
Good point, Kimberly. It's not just the history of HeLa cells, but the fact that breast cancer was neglected for a long time, that women had to make noise to get it noticed and placed on the agenda. Also, the mammogram's pain was ignored for a long time. If something similar had to be done to testicles, a better way would have been found at least 20 years ago. And I don't mean recommending that no one get the test.
cheers,
Laura
I think that the history of breast cancer research is a fairly well-documented example of how the course of research changes with the interests of women and that their interests and approaches are different.
For men it can also be competition. Last year, I took a very accomplished, bright Caltech prof and a few colleagues out to dinner after the Caltech prof talked at Pomona. He said there was no way for him to be sure of his "value" without constantly being a job candidate at other places. He felt it was terribly important for people to see "what they are worth on the open market." Some of the women there were quite stunned, never having thought about assessing their own value in this way.
A. I think women like to see the relevance to others, especially when there are anecdotes and stories connected with them. It's why so many women are attracted to biotech state as their key reason for joining "to help serve patients". For men it's usually "work/life balance or money".
I have to admit, I don't have scientific evidence for this, but I do think women are sometimes interested in different aspects of issues than men are. I've noticed women often want to do a survey or overview, which has a service aspect to it, when men hold back from that. I also think women can be more attracted to high risk projects that would really shake up the concepts in the field if they succeed. Both of these categories of research do include both sexes, but I (again, not scientifically) think women are disproportionately attracted to them.
In history of science, Skoot is going to what I consider a risky place here, and I am thrilled that her book has been so well received.
cheers,
Laura
Forget about the author's gender. This has so many feminist themes and race/class issues, its no wonder there's a book about it! WHOA. I haven't read the book (does it have a feminist angle at all?), but when you think of the story its pretty thematically consistent: female patient, female medical condition, cell line created from her tissue (by prob white male docs) that never benefitted her or her family.
I am really enthralled by the amazing story of these cells, both the back-story and what they have been used for medically. Kudos to Rebecca Skoot for mining this great story and raising the issues about who owns medical samples.
I guess I have to pick C. I'm not sure a man couldn't have seen these social issues. I suspect women see them more readily, though.
