Responsibility is the duty to deal or take care of something that is in your life. Scientists and inventors have a great deal of responsibility for what they create and how it affects the world. In Frankenstein, Victor creates a scientific creature from dead people's body parts that he thought would be an ideal person but, instead, it turned out to be a monster causing destruction to humans. In Henrietta Lacks, a scientist took a woman’s cells without consent and gained national attention from it because the cells helped create medicines and cures for people today. Silent Spring is about a chemical made to kill these bugs even though that worked, it also ended up killing other animals that were not intended to die. Scientist must have a responsibility …show more content…
for what they create no matter if the outcome is negative or positive because inventions can make a negative impact, and they need to monitor or control those impacts, care for or tend to a creation of life so that it does not disrupt world order, and be moral and ethical in the use of human specimens People always need to take responsibility for their creations because inventions can make a negative impact, and they need to monitor or control those impacts no matter what the outcome.
In Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”, the book says, “In 1962, scientists and author Rachel Carson published Silent Spring as a warning to the public about the environmental risks…”(Carson 27). This quote specifies that Rachel Carson has to take responsibility for releasing that information to the public not knowing what they would do with it. Another quote from the text states, “Then a strange blight crept over the area and everything began to change. Some evil spell had settled on the community: mysterious maladies swept the locks of chicken, the cattle and sheep sickened and ded. Everywhere was a shadow of death.”(Carson 28). This quote shows what the chemical is doing to the town and the damage it …show more content…
causes. Everyone needs to care and tend for a creation of life they make so it does not disrupt world order. In Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, Victor feels responsibility for the way his creation will act when not taken care of as needed to do well. This quote pulled from the text supports my commentary, “… did I not as his maker, owe him all the portions of happiness that was in my power to bestow?”(Shelley 139). The creature believes that his maker should do whatever to make him happy like a father to a son. But his maker, Victor, believes that the creatures request is a lot to handle that could get out of control even though he starts to think about it more. For example in the book Victor says, ¨I shuddered when I thought of the possible consequences of my consent, but I felt there was some justice in his argument¨(Shelley 139). This quote is about Victor’s creation wanting a mate that he claims he will run away with and never be seen by any humans again. But he also threatens to cause chaos if he doesn't get what he wants. This is when it gets hard for Victor because that monster is his creation and responsibility. Last but not least, scientists have the responsibility to give credit to anyone or anything that helps them or damages them on anything.
It’s against the law and wrong to not give credit when due. In Skloot’s “The Immortal Life Of Henrietta Lacks”, Skloot says, “..right after she died they called me in the office wanting to get my permission to take a sample of some kind. I decided not to let them.” (Skloot). That quote shows that the scientists did not get consent before proceeding to take out her cells and doing tests on them. When the scientists says, “I wish I could tell you” (Skloot 23), then the quote shows he did not know anything about Henrietta Lacks, just that her cells were remarkable. Also it is not right that the first scientists sold these cells and gave them to others who would repeat the process while Henrietta’s family were left to nothing from this. They had a responsibility to give credit to Ms. Lacks and her family but chose not to do
so. In conclusion, all creators and inventors have responsibility for what they create or invent, no matter the outcome it brings to the world.
While doctors and scientists were making millions of dollars through HeLa research, Henrietta’s family was living in poverty. Lawrence Lacks, Henrietta’s firstborn child, says, “Hopkins say they gave them cells away, but they made millions! It’s not fair! She’s the most important person in the world and her family living in poverty. If our mother so important to science, why can’t we get health insurance?” (pg.168). Someone who disagrees with this standpoint may argue that scientists had been trying for years to develop the perfect culture medium and had a much more hands on experience with the cells (pg.35), therefore, they should be receiving the earnings from any outcomes the HeLa cells may produce. While the scientists were in fact the brains behind the scientific advances, the family should be acknowledged on behalf of Henrietta Lacks. These successes in science would not have been possible without the origin of the cells: Henrietta Lacks. For some of the family, the primary focus was not even the profit. “Since they gone ahead and taken her cells and they been so important for science, Deborah thought, least they can do is give her credit for it.” (pg. 197). Here, Deborah Lacks, Henrietta’s fourth born child, makes it clear that her primary concern is getting her mother the recognition that she deserves for her
All I can say is amazing information of your glorious and late Henrietta Lacks. This incedible women bettered our society in ways no common human could understand at the time because of how complex this matter was and still very much indeed is. I know there is much contraversy with the matter of how scientists achived immortal cells from your late relative, and I do strongly agree with the fact that it was wrong for these researches to take advantage of this incredible women, but I know it is not for me to say nonethless it must be said that even though it was wrong to take Lacks’ cells when she was dying sometimes one must suffer to bring joy to the entire world.
In the novel The Immoral Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, the author tells the miraculous story of one woman’s amazing contribution to science. Henrietta Lacks unknowingly provides scientists with a biopsy capable of reproducing cells at a tremendusly fast pace. The story of Henrietta Lacks demonstrates how an individual’s rights can be effortlessly breached when it involves medical science and research. Although her cells have contributed to science in many miraculous ways, there is little known about the woman whose body they derived from. Skloot is a very gifted author whose essential writing technique divides the story into three parts so that she, Henrietta
The Belmont Report identifies three core principles that are to be respected when using human subjects for research. The three ethical principles are: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. In the case of Henrietta Lacks each of these fundamental components are violated. The consent that Henrietta provided was not sufficient for the procedures that were conducted.
To have something stolen from you is devastating and can change your life. But what if what was taken from you will save billions of human lives? In the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot, we see a woman named Henrietta had a biopsy of a cancerous tumor, and the cells from the tumor were able to live and grow outside of her body; and even better, the cells go on to find the cure for diseases such as polio. The catch is this: she signed a document giving her hospital permission to perform any medical procedure they find necessary to help her treatment, but she never gave specific permission for the cells in that biopsy to be tested and cultured. Now the big debate is over whether or not it was legal for her doctors
She died in 1951, and yet she is still alive. Literally, Henrietta Lacks has been unwittingly immortalized through her cells (HeLa) which have multiplied in laboratories throughout the world. The 2010 bestseller The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks also breathed life to the controversy surrounding her cells: should the Lacks family receive monetary compensation for HeLa’s immense contribution to science and medicine? That answer is a resolute no.
Henrietta Lacks is known as immortal because her cells are still being used to conduct research. On February 5th, 1951 Henrietta Lacks was diagnosed with malignant cervical cancer that was treated with harsh radiation. During her treatment and surgery of the cancer, she had a biopsy that collected a small portion of her cervical cells. Henrietta’s cells were special because they were able to self multiply under the right conditions. Her cells continue to be reproduced and sold all around the world for research. The question is should Henrietta and her family be compensated for her time and cells? This question will be analyzed from two different perspectives, which is the functionalist and a conflict theory perspective. In this
The novel, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, is written by Rebecca Skloot. This novel provides a real story regarding research using human tissue without patient’s consent. It gives the background of Henrietta Lacks and the achievements HeLa cells established to point out how fallacious it is for doctors to take the cells without asking. Through the unique pattern and devices, Skloot expresses her sympathy for the right of consent of medical research.
Henrietta Lacks was born on August 18, 1920 in Roanoke, Virginia. She stayed with her grandfather who also took care of her other cousins, one in particular whose name is David (Day) Lacks. As Henrietta grew up, she lived with both her Grandpa Tommy and Day and worked on his farm. Considering how Henrietta and Day were together from their childhood, it was no surprise that they started having kids and soon enough got married. As the years continued, Henrietta noticed that she kept feeling like there was a lump in her womb/cervix and discovered that there was a lump in her cervix. Soon enough, Henrietta went to Johns Hopkins Medical Center to get this check and learned that she had cervical cancer. But here is where the problem arises, Henrietta gave full consent for her cancer treatment at Hopkins, but she never gave consent for the extraction and use of her cells. During her first treatment TeLinde, the doctor treating Henrietta, removed 2 sample tissues: one from her tumor and one from healthy cervical tissue, and then proceeded to treat Henrietta, all the while no one knowing that Hopkins had obtained tissue samples from Henrietta without her consent. These samples were later handed to ...
Though her cells made many advancements in medicine, simply informing the family would have been the respectable and responsible thing for the doctor to do. The statement that Henrietta beat science was made and at first I had no idea what was meant by this. Her cells had multiplied by 400 times her body weight after the cells were taken and stored. The cell biologists had no idea how or why. The more time that was spent studying these cells, the more questions that arose in the quest to find the cure for cancer, the greatest in medicine were being defeated by the cells of an African American woman. Therefore, when the statement is made that Henrietta beat science, I take it as her condition and cells were so complex that even the greatest minds could not figure out why they did what they did. She still contributed to many other solutions that could save millions and billions of
In 1962, the publication of Silent Spring Rachel Carson captivated the American public. Carson wrote about the harmful effects of chemical pesticides in the environment, and her writing was very reflective of the events occurring at the time. There is a strong connection between Carson’s writing and the Cold War. In fact, if it were not for the war, the American public may not have responded in the same way to Carson’s writing. Carson used tone and content as methods of getting her point across to the public. Silent Spring shined a light on the damage done to the environment as a result of the Cold War, and this issue was finally being recognized by American public.
What is privacy? Well, it’s the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. In terms of information, it is the right to have some control over how one’s own personal information is collected and used. This is a right that has been inherently protected by the U.S Constitution, agreed upon by the Supreme Court, and yet, issues around this very topic arise every day. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the author Rebecca Skloot, addresses this issue in her story of the women behind the infamous HeLa cells. Her story shows that although privacy is a right that is inherently protected by the law, situations of injustice can still occur. Examples of this in the book include when Henrietta’s cells were given to Dr. Gey without any consent from Day, the situation in which Mr. Golde’s spleen was sold without his permission, as well as when the Lacks family were recontacted and mislead about the reasons they were tested years after Henrietta’s death.
The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks highlights how ethically flawed medicine once was and perhaps still is. It tells the devastating story of a woman whose cells were collected and cultured without her consent and its wondrous effect within the medical community as well as the equally distressing effect on her family. Preceding the 50s, scientists, specifically Dr. George Otto Gey have been trying without success to cultivate human cells in laboratories for decades. Henrietta Lacks was an African American tobacco farmer who was diagnosed and eventually succumbed from cervical cancer in 1951. Prior to her treatment, Lacks signed a statement permitting any surgery necessary but Dr. Wharton, before beginning the radium treatment, takes two samples from the unconscious Henrietta without her knowledge; one from her tumor and another from healthy tissue. He then provides Dr. TeLinde with these samples, who in turn delivers them to Dr. Gey. These cancerous, then dubbed, HeLa cells began to grow successfully and Gey began to give samples out to his colleagues, essentially staring a billion dollar industry.
“Carson used the era’s hysteria about radiation to snap her readers to attention, drawing a parallel between nuclear fallout and a new, invisible chemical threat of pesticides throughout Silent Spring,” (Griswold 21). She described radiation as the creation of human’s tampering with nature, and warned that similar dangers would become inevitable with the continued use of pesticides (Carson 7). Carson also knew that a large percent of her audience would be housewives, who she could use as example of those who found poisoned birds and squirrels in their gardens. She angled much of Silent Spring towards this audience, which helped her book become the catalyst for environmental change (Griswold
I remember when I first thought about the power one person could have to create change. I was a teenager growing up in the South when I read Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring”. This beautifully written book is a powerful indictment of the widespread use of pesticides. Rachel Carson criticized the chemical companies for claiming that pesticides were safe despite mounting evidence to the contrary. And she criticized public officials who accepted the chemical industry’s claims.