Because it‘s sometimes difficult to classify something as a crime if it wasn’t illegal when it happened. Like, it would be strange to call someone who rode their motorcycle witjout a helmet on in the 50s when it was perfectly legal to do so a criminal today. Some things are obviously ethically questionable even by standards of the time (think nazi germany), some are not as easily judged.
And this was clearly unethical and immoral, but was not illegal. So it's hard to know what it's safe to call it. But considering they deliberately kept her in the dark and didn't seek consent or give any information, we still know they knew what they were doing wasn't great, even at the time. But racism made them feel fine doing it.
Because cancer cells are not generally considered property, and patients routinely leave these cells at doctor's office without asserting their will to keep them for private purposes.
These cells would otherwise go to trash, and it's generally considered morally and legally permissible to take things thrown away with intention of getting rid of them.
I agree with this, but the moral obligation to then use someones very special cells, that normally would be disposed of, in a way that makes a butt-ton of money, without the persons knowledge, or consent, is where this becomes a case.
Edit: and that doesn’t even take into account the racial disparities at the time either.
In your first comment you said these cells “otherwise go in the trash” had they not been studied. And they would’ve gone in the trash had the cell cultures acted like normal cancer cells that had been observed at that time. These cells have since created a revenue stream, unbeknownst to the person who didn’t agree to have them be used for research to begin with. Your opinion on whats ethical, doesn’t actually make things ethical or not.
Yeah, I'm aware there exists a discipline of philosophy based on making plausibly looking, but usually internally incoherent explanations for opinions, that just few years ago caused, at low estimates, 300 thousands of avoidable deaths, because challenge trial for vaccines are evil smh.
To ask for consent is to make normative claim about needing it. You didn't ask for consent to reply to my comment: because you believe that some actions don't require it.
Because it wasn't really stealing. Like if you shit in a porta-potty and someone scoops your shit out to do tests on it, would say they "stole" your shit?
So, if you were to go get surgery today and get a tumor removed, you would need to sign extensive paperwork allowing your cells to be used for research, and all your information would be de-identified. This woman’s cells were taken without her knowledge and everyone knows exactly who she is. They certainly were stolen.
Actually her samples were relatively well de-identified. For decades researchers just had "hela" cells. It wasn't until someone explicitly dug into things, with modern methods, that they became identified.
Any time you give a biological specimen to a hospital, they own the biological specimen. Normies don’t understand this, but labs will often use your sample for other purposes. If there’s any paperwork that needs to be signed, it’s to avoid a situation like this where her grifter family thinks they can make easy money by suing.
No they don't. The hospital can't send it to another lab without a release. I worked in a lab and we had to get permission from the patient to do anything other than the testing that was ordered. We could get in trouble if we did tests that weren't ordered.
So you work in a lab huh? Tell me, how many times have you used a previously tested patient specimen to validate an instrument? Spoiler: every time. How many times have you used a previously tested patient specimen to validate a reagent? Spoiler: every time. Where do you think the samples come from when you’re sent a survey? Patient specimens.
I've been working in research for almost 10 years now and I've never heard anyone stopping to use Hela cells for these reasons. There many problems with the cell line itself that makes it suboptimal to use, but that's another issue.
No, I imagine the settlement was more than enough to drop the issue. Thats what you should do, they got the restitution they needed and should let the matter go
If her cells were human (they are) and slavery was legal (it was)
Then If she was alive during slavery, and still alive today there really wouldnt be a difference. "Oh, she slaves all over the country for scientists." "She was captured before slavery was illegal"
Yeah, her blackness has a lot to do with this entire case. If she had been a white woman, would the medical community have been more respectful with her biological material? Would someone have contacted her sooner to let her know what had been done with her cells? If she was a man, would anyone have felt she deserved compensation? To a lot of people this case has an emotional impact because of America's legacy of slavery.
Unpopular opinion, I couldn't care about their family.
It was a cancer mass that was removed It would have gone in the trash if some scientist didn't repurpose it. I don't understand why people think they're owed money for this. If I had to have a leg amputated and then someone made a really discovery with said leg all because it was my leg doesn't mean I'm entitled to anything.
That being said I'm glad there's regulations that people can't just take tissues without proper consent now but if I can go back in time and stop these people from doing it, obviously I would not because they have saved millions of lives with this technology.
I don't think henrietta's family is entitled to anything. No one even knew they were related to it for several decades
I've seen this story hypes several times but beyond the " medical providers should have informed consent" talking points I've never been compelled to care about these people's story. Like frankly I'm glad someone did something slightly unethical at the time because it has save millions of lives in the process and advanced medical science probably more than any other single discovery.
Yea I agree informed consent is important And I'm glad that this is the law now. Still if I could flip a magical switch to go back in time and stop them I wouldnt. And I don't think the family is owed any compensation as they did nothing besides be born.
Specially before genetic were really known I view this is an anonymous act in a sense
It's anything but anonymous because everyone knows the name of the person the cells came from. That makes all the difference in the world when it comes to research with human issues. Naming the cells "HeLa" was an egregious violation of Henrietta's right to privacy.
mandatory writing class in uni, the professor/TA chose The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks as the spring board for all of our essays, but gave insane pushback whenever someone held your view.
I held that view as well.
tried to fail me on the first assignment, luckily was an “A” student throughout school and heavily involved with my major’s program so able to have higher ups intervene and correct.
not sure why i shared this, but something about HeLa really seems to, from my perspective, erode logic. i don’t think there is any case for the family being compensated beyond whatever pain and suffering they’ve experienced from having this all turned into a circus.
Agreed, but also agree that genetic code shouldn’t be copyrightable at all and any company or person should have been able to buy the cells and use them for their own lines.
If she doesn’t own it, no one owns it.
Copyright issues in DNA are very far from over in medicine, we need to get this right.
Completely agree, but I feel like this steers into patent law/copyright law that I frankly don't understand enough to have a strong opinion on.
I agree that DNA should be copyright but at the same time I could see an argument about a novel viral vector being designed and that being copyright so idk
Monsanto holds copyright on all their seeds so farmers have to buy it every year and there is no time limit or anything on that ownership. I think the Lacks case was settled out of court because they didn’t want to set a precedent. HeLa made a ton of money for them, because they claim ownership. And here are people who can point out they also contain that dna and how can a company own it but not them? They haven’t faced that issue with plants speaking up even though it’s obviously going to be a complex issue.
Modern copyright was literally based on a medieval king ruling that a hand-written copy of the Bible written by a visitor who wanted to make his own copy and take it with him was instead owned by the monastery that had the original bible because ‘as a calf belongs to the cow, so the copy belongs to the original.’ Aside from missing the point that the monastery’s bible itself was surely a copy of some other bible, the concept definitely needs updating.
Edit:Monsanto has patents - I stand corrected. See below.
Just to elaborate, these regulations can be harmful to humanity as a whole. A colleague of mine recently established accidentally an interesting multiple myeloma cell line (those are a bit tricky). Unfortunately the consent form did not cover the establishment of a cell line (as we only use them for short term killing assays), thus we could not further characterize or distribute the cells.
I agree. This comment thread alone seems like a LOT of virtue signaling without anyone every actually considering " why does this actually matter"
Like I can agree informed consent is important, but at the time these regulations were not the same and frankly I'm glad they did something slightly unethical because what is she said "no" millions would be dead as a result.
No one can go back in time. But why are you so passionate that her family should remain in poverty and deserve nothing, while others have made obscene profits off of her cells and she died and had to buried in an unmarked grave, instead of being recognized as the tragic hero she is?
The cells don't need to be destroyed, but anyone trying to profit commercially by using them needs to compensate her family, and it's absolutely absurd to even try to claim otherwise.
They are just grifters who found an opportunity. In a ideal society, this could have been a hallmark case in common law that makes sure these things in the future also get punished.. but no. Just a cash grab.
When I entered pre-med at my university, we were told to read a HeLa book to learn about ethics in medicine. From what I gathered through that story is that people should be compensated where appropriate, but informed consent is even more important. However, even though Lacks developed super cancer that had become pivotal to research in modern medicine, her contributions end once medical research companies make their own findings and grow their own cells.
They grew her cells. HeLa cells are from her. All cells come from some person or some animal. Research companies don’t make their own; they aren’t able to. They take them from someone.
Right? Every one thinking they have a fucking point of ethics because they think they solved the trolly problem and the cat in a box problem combined do not understand what the fuck this means.
To me it means a corporation is not entitled to my work, my BODY and the parts of it they deem fantastic or worth something. It’s pretty landmark against corporate entities being protected by personhood and if I was a smarter person I could say more and use it to refute the idea that greater good always = greater good. The greater good means nothing if we’ve always learned on the backs of devalued people.
Glad to know I can’t sew an arm from a twin on a twin, not glad how we figured it out. Glad someone already knew hepatitis b could be prevented but still wants to risk lost life’s to suit ~something ~.
It’s money. It’s always money and unless the people without money start learning rapidly how much there is a price on their head and stop thinking they are immune to price point initiatives that eschew a fundamental fact that they matter the only way to prove this is to do what a ton of people in this thread are accusing and money grab right back. That’s the only thing that will give corporations pause. Hell of a run on but full send in the sentiment.
HeLa cell cultures practically grow themselves. I don’t think that a second reflection of my undergraduate orientation will change any facts that this situation led to more ethics in medicine, but that the family isn’t actively hindering research.
Suspicious-Elk-3631 | 9 hours ago
Her family should want for nothing. Humanity owes her a debt that can never be repaid.
blueoasis32 | 5 hours ago
Absolutely
mahalomonster | 10 hours ago
Why the quotes?
HyperSpaceSurfer | 10 hours ago
If they were stolen or not would've been determined by the court case that is no longer happening.
BabyLegsOShanahan | 10 hours ago
That's what I came to ask.
D15c0untMD | 8 hours ago
Because it‘s sometimes difficult to classify something as a crime if it wasn’t illegal when it happened. Like, it would be strange to call someone who rode their motorcycle witjout a helmet on in the 50s when it was perfectly legal to do so a criminal today. Some things are obviously ethically questionable even by standards of the time (think nazi germany), some are not as easily judged.
InfinitelyThirsting | 5 hours ago
And this was clearly unethical and immoral, but was not illegal. So it's hard to know what it's safe to call it. But considering they deliberately kept her in the dark and didn't seek consent or give any information, we still know they knew what they were doing wasn't great, even at the time. But racism made them feel fine doing it.
Ginden | 10 hours ago
Because cancer cells are not generally considered property, and patients routinely leave these cells at doctor's office without asserting their will to keep them for private purposes.
These cells would otherwise go to trash, and it's generally considered morally and legally permissible to take things thrown away with intention of getting rid of them.
Bhavacakra_12 | 10 hours ago
Hello Novartis.
One_Olive_8933 | 8 hours ago
I agree with this, but the moral obligation to then use someones very special cells, that normally would be disposed of, in a way that makes a butt-ton of money, without the persons knowledge, or consent, is where this becomes a case. Edit: and that doesn’t even take into account the racial disparities at the time either.
Ginden | 7 hours ago
> that normally would be disposed of
No, it was normal practice at time to use such cells for research.
> in a way that makes a butt-ton of money
People responsible for discovering HeLa cells did not make money.
> without the persons knowledge, or consent, is where this becomes a case
I don't think people should even be able to "refuse consent" for use of their discarded body parts for research purposes.
One_Olive_8933 | 5 hours ago
In your first comment you said these cells “otherwise go in the trash” had they not been studied. And they would’ve gone in the trash had the cell cultures acted like normal cancer cells that had been observed at that time. These cells have since created a revenue stream, unbeknownst to the person who didn’t agree to have them be used for research to begin with. Your opinion on whats ethical, doesn’t actually make things ethical or not.
Ginden | 3 hours ago
> Your opinion on whats ethical, doesn’t actually make things ethical or not.
Indeed. Does your opinion on this matter make things ethical or not?
One_Olive_8933 | an hour ago
I didn’t state my opinion. There are things called bio-ethics.
Ginden | an hour ago
>There are things called bio-ethics.
Yeah, I'm aware there exists a discipline of philosophy based on making plausibly looking, but usually internally incoherent explanations for opinions, that just few years ago caused, at low estimates, 300 thousands of avoidable deaths, because challenge trial for vaccines are evil smh.
HistoricalSuspect580 | 7 hours ago
With consent. Consent. YOU NEED CONSENT.
It’s a good rule of thumb in all walks of life.
Ginden | 6 hours ago
To ask for consent is to make normative claim about needing it. You didn't ask for consent to reply to my comment: because you believe that some actions don't require it.
HistoricalSuspect580 | 5 hours ago
responding to a comment on a public forum is not the same as bodily autonomy. Crazy take.
Ginden | 3 hours ago
> responding to a comment on a public forum is not the same as bodily autonomy.
Indeed, in previous command I said that you don't consider them to be the same!
Uncle-Cake | 7 hours ago
Because it wasn't really stealing. Like if you shit in a porta-potty and someone scoops your shit out to do tests on it, would say they "stole" your shit?
Decent_Visual_4845 | 10 hours ago
Because the cells weren’t stolen, they were collected as a biological specimen at a hospital that was treating her for free anyways.
The family is just looking for a payday and most normies don’t understand how this works and think something was stolen from her.
DarthRevan109 | 10 hours ago
So, if you were to go get surgery today and get a tumor removed, you would need to sign extensive paperwork allowing your cells to be used for research, and all your information would be de-identified. This woman’s cells were taken without her knowledge and everyone knows exactly who she is. They certainly were stolen.
See the difference?
amusing_trivials | 7 hours ago
Actually her samples were relatively well de-identified. For decades researchers just had "hela" cells. It wasn't until someone explicitly dug into things, with modern methods, that they became identified.
Decent_Visual_4845 | 9 hours ago
Any time you give a biological specimen to a hospital, they own the biological specimen. Normies don’t understand this, but labs will often use your sample for other purposes. If there’s any paperwork that needs to be signed, it’s to avoid a situation like this where her grifter family thinks they can make easy money by suing.
erabera | 9 hours ago
No they don't. The hospital can't send it to another lab without a release. I worked in a lab and we had to get permission from the patient to do anything other than the testing that was ordered. We could get in trouble if we did tests that weren't ordered.
Decent_Visual_4845 | 9 hours ago
So you work in a lab huh? Tell me, how many times have you used a previously tested patient specimen to validate an instrument? Spoiler: every time. How many times have you used a previously tested patient specimen to validate a reagent? Spoiler: every time. Where do you think the samples come from when you’re sent a survey? Patient specimens.
DarthRevan109 | 6 hours ago
Where was Henrietta Lacks from and where was this court case?
EyeBeeStone | 9 hours ago
Stfu Norm
FishermanOk7284 | 10 hours ago
Rest in power, Henrietta.
Independent-Shoe543 | 10 hours ago
Does that mean literally every other lab in the world that uses HeLa cells now also have to pay up (which is pretty much every cell culture lab ever)
Basicly-Inevitable | 8 hours ago
Quite a lot of labs have instead just stopped using them, and instead use different cell lines now.
Fmarulezkd | 7 hours ago
I've been working in research for almost 10 years now and I've never heard anyone stopping to use Hela cells for these reasons. There many problems with the cell line itself that makes it suboptimal to use, but that's another issue.
Basicly-Inevitable | 7 hours ago
The last 3 biotech companies I've worked for specifically stopped using them for ethical and potential monetary issues (lawsuits from the family).
Brent_the_Ent | 7 hours ago
No, I imagine the settlement was more than enough to drop the issue. Thats what you should do, they got the restitution they needed and should let the matter go
DocHolidayPhD | 10 hours ago
Well that's some nice news to wake up to!
BabyLegsOShanahan | 10 hours ago
They need to be paid. In terms of worth, they should be the richest family on the planet.
twirling-upward | 10 hours ago
For what? There was no law at the time that required permission, these cells would have gone to the trash if the scientists didnt find out.
DazzlingAd7021 | 10 hours ago
Slavery was legal as well. Saying something is moral because it's legal is faulty reasoning.
Ashamed-Country3909 | 5 hours ago
That is kind of a funny thing to think about.
If her cells were human (they are) and slavery was legal (it was)
Then If she was alive during slavery, and still alive today there really wouldnt be a difference. "Oh, she slaves all over the country for scientists." "She was captured before slavery was illegal"
The answer would be to free her (cells).
DazzlingAd7021 | 4 hours ago
Yeah, her blackness has a lot to do with this entire case. If she had been a white woman, would the medical community have been more respectful with her biological material? Would someone have contacted her sooner to let her know what had been done with her cells? If she was a man, would anyone have felt she deserved compensation? To a lot of people this case has an emotional impact because of America's legacy of slavery.
BabyLegsOShanahan | 10 hours ago
If you take something that isn't yours. It's stealing. The did it intentionally and then blocked her family from getting recourse for years.
By your logic the medical apartheid that took place was okay because it didn't break any laws at the time.
chromatic45 | 5 hours ago
People that think along the lines that you do, are the reason humanity isn’t more advanced.
Decent_Visual_4845 | 10 hours ago
Literally not how any of this works
CA_vv | 7 hours ago
What value have they added to society?
HistoricalSuspect580 | 7 hours ago
HeLa cells have saved millions of lives. This isn’t disputed, by anybody.
CA_vv | 5 hours ago
That’s the work of scientists.
Not Henrietta lacks descendants making the lawsuits today
Oogaman00 | 7 hours ago
How did Novartis get sued for cells stolen by a random hospital and used in every research lab around the world?
Melodic_Pool3729 | 10 hours ago
Unpopular opinion, I couldn't care about their family.
It was a cancer mass that was removed It would have gone in the trash if some scientist didn't repurpose it. I don't understand why people think they're owed money for this. If I had to have a leg amputated and then someone made a really discovery with said leg all because it was my leg doesn't mean I'm entitled to anything.
That being said I'm glad there's regulations that people can't just take tissues without proper consent now but if I can go back in time and stop these people from doing it, obviously I would not because they have saved millions of lives with this technology.
I don't think henrietta's family is entitled to anything. No one even knew they were related to it for several decades
I've seen this story hypes several times but beyond the " medical providers should have informed consent" talking points I've never been compelled to care about these people's story. Like frankly I'm glad someone did something slightly unethical at the time because it has save millions of lives in the process and advanced medical science probably more than any other single discovery.
[OP] StemCellPirate | 10 hours ago
It’s called informed consent.
Melodic_Pool3729 | 10 hours ago
Yea I agree informed consent is important And I'm glad that this is the law now. Still if I could flip a magical switch to go back in time and stop them I wouldnt. And I don't think the family is owed any compensation as they did nothing besides be born.
Specially before genetic were really known I view this is an anonymous act in a sense
idontknowwhybutido2 | 6 hours ago
It's anything but anonymous because everyone knows the name of the person the cells came from. That makes all the difference in the world when it comes to research with human issues. Naming the cells "HeLa" was an egregious violation of Henrietta's right to privacy.
stay-free | 9 hours ago
Okay
jonpa | 9 hours ago
mandatory writing class in uni, the professor/TA chose The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks as the spring board for all of our essays, but gave insane pushback whenever someone held your view. I held that view as well.
tried to fail me on the first assignment, luckily was an “A” student throughout school and heavily involved with my major’s program so able to have higher ups intervene and correct.
not sure why i shared this, but something about HeLa really seems to, from my perspective, erode logic. i don’t think there is any case for the family being compensated beyond whatever pain and suffering they’ve experienced from having this all turned into a circus.
firstofall0 | 10 hours ago
Agreed, but also agree that genetic code shouldn’t be copyrightable at all and any company or person should have been able to buy the cells and use them for their own lines. If she doesn’t own it, no one owns it. Copyright issues in DNA are very far from over in medicine, we need to get this right.
Melodic_Pool3729 | 10 hours ago
Completely agree, but I feel like this steers into patent law/copyright law that I frankly don't understand enough to have a strong opinion on.
I agree that DNA should be copyright but at the same time I could see an argument about a novel viral vector being designed and that being copyright so idk
firstofall0 | 9 hours ago
Monsanto holds copyright on all their seeds so farmers have to buy it every year and there is no time limit or anything on that ownership. I think the Lacks case was settled out of court because they didn’t want to set a precedent. HeLa made a ton of money for them, because they claim ownership. And here are people who can point out they also contain that dna and how can a company own it but not them? They haven’t faced that issue with plants speaking up even though it’s obviously going to be a complex issue. Modern copyright was literally based on a medieval king ruling that a hand-written copy of the Bible written by a visitor who wanted to make his own copy and take it with him was instead owned by the monastery that had the original bible because ‘as a calf belongs to the cow, so the copy belongs to the original.’ Aside from missing the point that the monastery’s bible itself was surely a copy of some other bible, the concept definitely needs updating. Edit:Monsanto has patents - I stand corrected. See below.
TheNutsMutts | 8 hours ago
> Monsanto holds copyright on all their seeds so farmers have to buy it every year and there is no time limit or anything on that ownership.
They're patented, not copyrighted. Patents have a limited timeframe, they're not eternal. There's loads of off-patent seeds farmers are able to buy.
firstofall0 | 4 hours ago
Thanks for the correction.
Fmarulezkd | 7 hours ago
Just to elaborate, these regulations can be harmful to humanity as a whole. A colleague of mine recently established accidentally an interesting multiple myeloma cell line (those are a bit tricky). Unfortunately the consent form did not cover the establishment of a cell line (as we only use them for short term killing assays), thus we could not further characterize or distribute the cells.
Zenside | 10 hours ago
I think it just boils down to political theater at this point. Its all so tiresome...
Melodic_Pool3729 | 10 hours ago
I agree. This comment thread alone seems like a LOT of virtue signaling without anyone every actually considering " why does this actually matter"
Like I can agree informed consent is important, but at the time these regulations were not the same and frankly I'm glad they did something slightly unethical because what is she said "no" millions would be dead as a result.
It's a trolly problem.
InfinitelyThirsting | 5 hours ago
No one can go back in time. But why are you so passionate that her family should remain in poverty and deserve nothing, while others have made obscene profits off of her cells and she died and had to buried in an unmarked grave, instead of being recognized as the tragic hero she is?
The cells don't need to be destroyed, but anyone trying to profit commercially by using them needs to compensate her family, and it's absolutely absurd to even try to claim otherwise.
twirling-upward | 10 hours ago
They are just grifters who found an opportunity. In a ideal society, this could have been a hallmark case in common law that makes sure these things in the future also get punished.. but no. Just a cash grab.
cmmovick | 9 hours ago
You mean Novartis, right?
AgedCircle | 9 hours ago
When I entered pre-med at my university, we were told to read a HeLa book to learn about ethics in medicine. From what I gathered through that story is that people should be compensated where appropriate, but informed consent is even more important. However, even though Lacks developed super cancer that had become pivotal to research in modern medicine, her contributions end once medical research companies make their own findings and grow their own cells.
The_best_is_yet | 9 hours ago
They grew her cells. HeLa cells are from her. All cells come from some person or some animal. Research companies don’t make their own; they aren’t able to. They take them from someone.
AgedCircle | 9 hours ago
They aren’t actively scraping her cervix for new cells. Her family isn’t growing and selling them. Without the scientists, there would be nothing.
Bulky-Yogurt-1703 | 9 hours ago
I don’t think you understood the book or how cells work. You might want to retake the class.
LifeguardSimilar4067 | 7 hours ago
Right? Every one thinking they have a fucking point of ethics because they think they solved the trolly problem and the cat in a box problem combined do not understand what the fuck this means.
To me it means a corporation is not entitled to my work, my BODY and the parts of it they deem fantastic or worth something. It’s pretty landmark against corporate entities being protected by personhood and if I was a smarter person I could say more and use it to refute the idea that greater good always = greater good. The greater good means nothing if we’ve always learned on the backs of devalued people.
Glad to know I can’t sew an arm from a twin on a twin, not glad how we figured it out. Glad someone already knew hepatitis b could be prevented but still wants to risk lost life’s to suit ~something ~.
It’s money. It’s always money and unless the people without money start learning rapidly how much there is a price on their head and stop thinking they are immune to price point initiatives that eschew a fundamental fact that they matter the only way to prove this is to do what a ton of people in this thread are accusing and money grab right back. That’s the only thing that will give corporations pause. Hell of a run on but full send in the sentiment.
AgedCircle | 7 hours ago
HeLa cell cultures practically grow themselves. I don’t think that a second reflection of my undergraduate orientation will change any facts that this situation led to more ethics in medicine, but that the family isn’t actively hindering research.
HistoricalSuspect580 | 7 hours ago
No they don’t. You don’t come up with Calc 3 without fractions. You don’t produce Shakespeare without learning the alphabet.
DrBrainWillisto | 6 hours ago
They were never stolen. Also, it was the same cancer cells that killed her. I don’t see how compensation is needed for this.