5 ms·

Henrietta Lacks Seems Like a Nice Person, but Not a Scientific Hero

16 points by NavinF 2y ago

Quinzel 2y ago
I agree with this stance. HeLa cells are interesting, but Henrietta Lacks is not a hero in science.
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
patrickjd 2y ago
I only skimmed the article but it seems like the idea that Lacks was a "Scientific Hero" is something the author implies was implied by others and then goes on to argue that it isn't the case. This strikes me as disingenuous, a way of trying to rally against sympathy for her case by addressing a claim made up by the author.
- NavinF 2y ago
  He gave many examples of people treating her as a her as a hero. Eg: > United States Rep. Kwesi Mfume (D-Md) filed legislation to posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Henrietta Lacks for her distinguished contributions to science. The award is one of the most prestigious civilian honors given by the United States government
  - ZeroGravitas 2y ago
    They gave the medal to everyone who died in 9/11, and while I think there was probably several acts of heroism involved on the day, the aim there seems to be recognizing victims more than heros. But the actual criteria for the medal is nothing to do with heroism: > made a major and long-standing impact on American history and culture. Which I think is a bar she (and 9/11 victims) clears easily.
like_any_other 2y ago
Contrast this with James Harrison, who, voluntarily and for no compensation, donated his blood plasma once every three weeks for 57 years, because his blood was unusually good for medicine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor)
- aredox 2y ago
  He did it willingly and was recognised for it. Henrietta Lacks wasn't.
  - like_any_other 2y ago
    Yes, James willingly donated a lot of time and blood, while Henrietta was no worse off for her 'victimhood', nor was she the only such 'victim': "As was then the practice, no consent was required to culture the cells obtained from Lacks's treatment." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks It is fashionable to treat the smallest misstep of the doctors trying to save her life, and the lives of countless others, as some unforgivable harm. But I don't buy it.
    - aredox 2y ago
      >But I don't buy it. Because it didn't happen to you. You have no skin in that game.
      - like_any_other 2y ago
        I gave blood plenty of times, i.e. 'skin'. If one day doctors told me "oh by the way, we made the Polio vaccine using some of your blood, but didn't ask permission", I can confidently say I wouldn't mind. I'm not going to pretend the opportunistic feigned victimhood conjured around that case has any merit, as if giving a cell sample is something so unimaginable, that nobody else could possibly know how they would feel about it, unless it happened to them.
      - 2y ago
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
I have to give him some credit, after he said something that seemed totally hypocritical I instantly thought "What is he some Marxist now that a black woman's family might have some valuable property?" but read on and he made exactly the same point I would about getting rich finding oil. Would respect him more if he'd realised that made the whole thing not worth writing about, but I guess he just couldn't let it go.
dmazin 2y ago
I know I'm not actually engaging with the substance of this post (because it isn't worth it, sorry – not one of his good ones) but it's interesting to note that people are suddenly posting all sorts of spicy things. Feels like people are doing victory laps about "death of DEI". And the thing is... the things they're posting are really boring. Like pg's "origin of Woke" that even HN dragged. I get people's point that the past 10 years have stifled interesting discussion. Well, let's see it then. Show me the interesting discussion. This is not it.
- Earw0rm 2y ago
  It's a two years old post, referencing an (admittedly silly) legal case that's two years older again. I don't know why it's even made the front page, whole thing feels strawmannish. But yeah, congratulations to the anti-DEI mob, you can now make comedies again where the punchline is "a man is wearing a dress" or "look at his funny foreign accent". Whoop-de-doo, that shit was getting plain tired years before it ever got cancelled.
- NavinF 2y ago
  > people are suddenly posting all sorts of spicy things I don't think this is particularly spicy. What posts are you thinking of? pg has criticized woke for at least a decade so that's not a new thing either.
eadmund 2y ago
It is strange to me how in the last few decades ‘hero’ and ‘victim’ have gotten muddle together. I believe that a hero has to actively do something important in spite of great personal risk to himself which he recognises. As an example, a heroic teacher might run into a burning school to save a child, but a teacher who goes into a build to fetch a kid in the ordinary course of his job, without knowing that there is a hidden fire elsewhere in the building, isn’t being heroic (at least not yet). Heroism isn’t passive: the hero has to have a choice. A victim is someone who experiences something bad done to him. Mrs. Lacks was a victim of medical practices we would not support today. She didn’t have a choice: indeed, it was the failure to respect her right to choose the disposition of her remains which was the injustice she suffered.
bicepjai 2y ago
It’s problematic to make assumptions about someone who isn’t here to speak for themselves. While the unauthorized use of medical samples without consent is clearly unethical, neither heroizing nor victimizing Henrietta Lacks accurately represents her role. The unique properties of her cells don’t justify their collection and use without permission.

16 points by NavinF 2y ago

Quinzel 2y ago

I agree with this stance. HeLa cells are interesting, but Henrietta Lacks is not a hero in science.

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

patrickjd 2y ago

I only skimmed the article but it seems like the idea that Lacks was a "Scientific Hero" is something the author implies was implied by others and then goes on to argue that it isn't the case. This strikes me as disingenuous, a way of trying to rally against sympathy for her case by addressing a claim made up by the author.

NavinF 2y ago
He gave many examples of people treating her as a her as a hero. Eg: > United States Rep. Kwesi Mfume (D-Md) filed legislation to posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Henrietta Lacks for her distinguished contributions to science. The award is one of the most prestigious civilian honors given by the United States government
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  They gave the medal to everyone who died in 9/11, and while I think there was probably several acts of heroism involved on the day, the aim there seems to be recognizing victims more than heros. But the actual criteria for the medal is nothing to do with heroism: > made a major and long-standing impact on American history and culture. Which I think is a bar she (and 9/11 victims) clears easily.

like_any_other 2y ago

Contrast this with James Harrison, who, voluntarily and for no compensation, donated his blood plasma once every three weeks for 57 years, because his blood was unusually good for medicine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Harrison_(blood_donor)

aredox 2y ago
He did it willingly and was recognised for it. Henrietta Lacks wasn't.
- like_any_other 2y ago
  Yes, James willingly donated a lot of time and blood, while Henrietta was no worse off for her 'victimhood', nor was she the only such 'victim': "As was then the practice, no consent was required to culture the cells obtained from Lacks's treatment." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks It is fashionable to treat the smallest misstep of the doctors trying to save her life, and the lives of countless others, as some unforgivable harm. But I don't buy it.
  - aredox 2y ago
    >But I don't buy it. Because it didn't happen to you. You have no skin in that game.
    - like_any_other 2y ago
      I gave blood plenty of times, i.e. 'skin'. If one day doctors told me "oh by the way, we made the Polio vaccine using some of your blood, but didn't ask permission", I can confidently say I wouldn't mind. I'm not going to pretend the opportunistic feigned victimhood conjured around that case has any merit, as if giving a cell sample is something so unimaginable, that nobody else could possibly know how they would feel about it, unless it happened to them.
    - 2y ago

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

I have to give him some credit, after he said something that seemed totally hypocritical I instantly thought "What is he some Marxist now that a black woman's family might have some valuable property?" but read on and he made exactly the same point I would about getting rich finding oil. Would respect him more if he'd realised that made the whole thing not worth writing about, but I guess he just couldn't let it go.

dmazin 2y ago

I know I'm not actually engaging with the substance of this post (because it isn't worth it, sorry – not one of his good ones) but it's interesting to note that people are suddenly posting all sorts of spicy things. Feels like people are doing victory laps about "death of DEI". And the thing is... the things they're posting are really boring. Like pg's "origin of Woke" that even HN dragged. I get people's point that the past 10 years have stifled interesting discussion. Well, let's see it then. Show me the interesting discussion. This is not it.

Earw0rm 2y ago
It's a two years old post, referencing an (admittedly silly) legal case that's two years older again. I don't know why it's even made the front page, whole thing feels strawmannish. But yeah, congratulations to the anti-DEI mob, you can now make comedies again where the punchline is "a man is wearing a dress" or "look at his funny foreign accent". Whoop-de-doo, that shit was getting plain tired years before it ever got cancelled.
NavinF 2y ago
> people are suddenly posting all sorts of spicy things I don't think this is particularly spicy. What posts are you thinking of? pg has criticized woke for at least a decade so that's not a new thing either.

eadmund 2y ago

It is strange to me how in the last few decades ‘hero’ and ‘victim’ have gotten muddle together. I believe that a hero has to actively do something important in spite of great personal risk to himself which he recognises. As an example, a heroic teacher might run into a burning school to save a child, but a teacher who goes into a build to fetch a kid in the ordinary course of his job, without knowing that there is a hidden fire elsewhere in the building, isn’t being heroic (at least not yet). Heroism isn’t passive: the hero has to have a choice. A victim is someone who experiences something bad done to him. Mrs. Lacks was a victim of medical practices we would not support today. She didn’t have a choice: indeed, it was the failure to respect her right to choose the disposition of her remains which was the injustice she suffered.

bicepjai 2y ago

It’s problematic to make assumptions about someone who isn’t here to speak for themselves. While the unauthorized use of medical samples without consent is clearly unethical, neither heroizing nor victimizing Henrietta Lacks accurately represents her role. The unique properties of her cells don’t justify their collection and use without permission.