GREETINGS

"Her name was Henrietta Lacks, but scientists know her as HeLa. She was a poor black tabacco farmer whose cells--taken without her knowledge in 1951--became one of the most important tools in medicine, vital for developing the polio vaccine, cloning, gene mapping, and more."


Welcome to the MORE Program’s book blog. As we read and discuss this year’s One Campus, One Book selection, I welcome all of you to reflect and write about Henrietta’s enduring legacy. Writing helps us convey ideas, solve problems, and understand our changing world and what better way to do this than through Skloot’s story of the HeLa cells. Science, medicine, bioethics, technology, race, class, and gender in America are just a few of the issues that I encourage you to blog about.

Blog #3

Story telling has been around since the beginning of time. Before the written word there was oral story telling. From one generation to the next stories from the past have been told and retold. So the fact that someone besides the "main character" of a story is the one to tell the story is not new. Sometimes there are better suited people, those with the gift of telling a story in such a way that will make an impact. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks  we are told of how hard Deborah Lacks tried to get the word/story out of her mother's contribution to science but with no avail. There were many factors that would have contributed to the fact that she alone was not able to get the recognition she so greatly wanted. One reason might have been that she did not know who to tell. She was passing flyers around her neighborhood where most people are so occupied with their daily struggles no one would care enough about Henrietta Lacks and her cells. Another reason is that no one she spoke to besides Rebecca Skloot cared about Henrietta Lacks as a person not just as a the source of the cells that they might be using or a cash source.

The right to reap the benefits of the book should be shared. It took a lot of time and hard work on Rebecca Skloot's part to get this work out. She does deserve some of the benefits associated with the book. But the family does also. Without the cooperation of Deborah Lacks, Rebecca Skloot would have a very weak story to tell. The story of Henrietta Lacks cannot be told without those who knew her the most; her family. Deborah is, I believe, entitled to some of the benefits, even though she says multiple times that she just wants people to know who Henrietta Lacks was.

As for the race of the person writing the book, it is hard to tell. In our present day society we know that some racism still exists. I hope that this is changing and will continue to change but there are places where anyone who has a good story to tell will be heard. Henrietta Lacks was a mystery to many and even though others before Rebbeca Skloot have tried to tell the story, she was able to get it to the right people and get it publicized to those who would care. So in a way who cares what Rebbeca Skloots race is, she was able to do what others couldn't.

Blog #3

What does it mean to be an author, to tell a story? Is the author the authority, or should the subjects have a say in their own lives? In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot tells the story of Henrietta Lacks writing about experiences in detail that she could neither have known about nor experienced. In the past, particularly in writings from the Anti-Slavery movement, this was a common practice, and was seen as a necessary tactic to combat the evil of slavery. However, we live in a very different world today, so, is this still fair? Or does this kind of book allow privileged outsiders to reap the benefits (this is a highly successful work) of another’s suffering?  Explain whether or not you think this kind authorship is appropriate. If yes, why? What “gives them the right”? If no, why not? Aren’t these stories important? If we didn’t hear them from these White women, would we hear them at all?

            An author is a person who has the ability to give existence to anything. Their words can imprint an image of what they are attempting to get across. With such power, comes an enormous amount of responsibility because define a person they speak about. When it comes to an author that writes about a persons life they are only able to express that individual life from their point of view. Therefore the reader may not be able to understand all the hardships and struggles that a character may face if the writer can’t fully understand and go through the same experiences as the character once did. A characters story may not be fully told if it does not come from the character own words. In the case of Henrietta Lacks, the readers can get a sense of her hardships, but the people who talked about her hardship could have had a mental block and were not able to fully express what she has really gone through. A main speaker on Henrietta Lacks was her husband, but it may have been difficult to express the hardships of the woman he truly loved because it is a difficult task to talk about therefore a persons mind tends to block it out.

            Although Rebecca Skloot never spoke to Henrietta Lacks individually, she truly tried to tell her story to the world by putting her self in the story as well. She never gave up on reaching Henrietta’s family and she risked her life travelling and searching for Henrietta’s family members all by her self. Not only did she risk her life but she developed a relationship with Henrietta’s family that allowed access to Henrietta’s personal life. It is much more valuable for writer to put themselves in the story because it gives the reader better understanding of Henrietta’s lifestyle.

            Telling someone’s stories may give the writer some benefit but I getting the story out there is much more important than one person gaining fame or money out of it. When the world and children read about Henrietta’s cells and the struggles she went through it is a lesson that everyone can benefit from just by sparking up a conversation about it.  This authorship should be appropriate if the character is not able to get their own story across. The only power a writer has is telling the story but it is up to the reader to believe it because everyone has the freedom to discuss their own opinions and find out about facts that may not be real. A writer has every right to talk about another individual life as long as teaches readers a valuable lesson that will help them in life. If we did not hear the stories we hear now then, it would minimize the amount of knowledge and concern people have now.

TILoHL Blog post #3

What does it mean to be an author, to tell a story? Is the author the authority, or should the subjects have a say in their own lives? In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot tells the story of Henrietta Lacks writing about experiences in detail that she could neither have known about nor experienced. In the past, particularly in writings from the Anti-Slavery movement, this was a common practice, and was seen as a necessary tactic to combat the evil of slavery. However, we live in a very different world today, so, is this still fair? Or does this kind of book allow privileged outsiders to reap the benefits (this is a highly successful work) of another’s suffering?  Explain whether or not you think this kind authorship is appropriate. If yes, why? What “gives them the right”? If no, why not? Aren’t these stories important? If we didn’t hear them from these White women, would we hear them at all? 

Be it in fictitious or factual publications, an author’s objective should be to tell a story to his or her reader, either as means to inform or to entertain (even both). However, many fine lines are treaded regarding authority around the information the author uses, often surrounding net profits and fame. In Rebecca Skloot’s case, the author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, she sought to inform her readers of the tragic history surrounding the biologically important HeLa cells, both from the angles of the scientists involved with the cells, and the many hearsay stories surrounding Henrietta Lacks herself, much of which can be backed mostly by testimony.

First and foremost, I must comment that I do not particularly agree with any one of the sides in this dichotomous setup. Personally, I feel that Rebecca Skloot is merely giving a historical and informative viewpoint of past events in Lacks’ life. True as it may be that Skloot would never personally understand Lacks’ tragic past, Skloot’s authorship in this case was not centered solely on the basis of profit or gain, especially when you consider that many of such events occurred at a time where it would be physically impossible. However so, it is also true that unless some form of royalties are issued to those families’ or persons’ whose namesakes being used, the use of their information and stories can be viewed as unethical or abusive.

In my personal opinion, if Skloot had not done such intrusive investigation, the historical analysis of the lady behind the world-famous HeLa cells would likely have remained a mystery to the general public, likely requiring extensive research by an individual in order to make any leeway in discovering more information. Not to mention that this publication served to aid progress in varying sociological and humanist aspects of the scientific world. Considering many events in the book, both unethical treatment of Henrietta Lacks and the horrifyingly abusive techniques carried out by scientists, a reader who is likely not intensively involved with biological sciences will then be informed of the questionable past of many scientific progress, but is also exposed to the progressive research allotted by the study of the HeLa cells. These points, however, do not make it fair for the author to receive all of the privileges that come with such historical story telling.

The point that we only hear of such stories from white women is both a moot yet awkwardly spot on point. Many stories told by the oppressed have survived the rough wear and tear of history, yet in the era present within the story of Henrietta Lacks, many stories of the slaves or abused minorities are now just an undiscoverable part of history. Furthermore, stories told by white women at the time would likely survive with better accuracy as they would likely be literate and able to document such stories on paper rather than word-of-mouth. Not to say that the stories would all be lost with time, but rather the stories’ accuracy would remain considerably consistent throughout history.

All in all, I must adhere to the idea that this type of authorship, as potentially abusive as it can be, is necessary in order to preserve history. This type of authorship, however, should not be the privilege of anyone until consent from the appropriate involved persons is given. Also, some form of reparation or repayment should be issued for parties involved within the story’s publication. This ensures that the abuse present in the earlier segregation days would not be repeated in our current time as all involved persons would have a valid output in what is to be decided with the use of their personal information. 

Blog # 3

           What does it mean to be an author, to tell a story? Is the author the authority, or should the subjects have a say in their own lives? In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot tells the story of Henrietta Lacks writing about experiences in detail that she could neither have known about nor experienced. In the past, particularly in writings from the Anti-Slavery movement, this was a common practice, and was seen as a necessary tactic to combat the evil of slavery. However, we live in a very different world today, so, is this still fair? Or does this kind of book allow privileged outsiders to reap the benefits (this is a highly successful work) of another’s suffering?  Explain whether or not you think this kind authorship is appropriate. If yes, why? What “gives them the right”? If no, why not? Aren't these stories important? If we didn't hear them from these White women, would we hear them at all? 

           Rebecca Skloot's life experience is drastically different than that of Henrietta Lacks. As a writer, however, Rebecca must overcome that barrier and attempt to enter a different world to tell Henrietta's story. This is necessary to make an earnest effort to accurately tell a story that needs to be told. The voice of an author, thus, must be without color, race, or background so as to not distract the reader from the point of the message. The writer can be of any background since it is only the message that matters. In “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”, although it is Rebecca Skloot, a white woman, that leads readers on a trip through a remorseful past of segregation in America, her background is of no concern since the Skloot attempts to portray the story through the eyes of Henrietta as true as possible. 

           When Skloot began her endeavor to discover the person behind HeLa, her sincere fascination with the subject motivated her to piece together the story through interviews, historical records, and some creative freedom. Despite the cultural and socioeconomic divide, from the day she first heard about the HeLa cells, it was a subject she was interested in pursuing. Much of the information regarding the origins of these cells was not reliable, thus she took it upon herself to investigate. The question about whether or not she is qualified to write about Henrietta Lacks is irrelevant simply because of her interest. If only a black woman with a background similar to that of Henrietta's would be allowed to write about these issues, and not a white woman (or man), then it is no different to say that race and class must be separated once again. Stories as powerful as that of Henrietta's life and death (and life of her cells) deserve to be disseminated without blanket restrictions based on the source.

           It is the readers that must decide whether or not a story is worthy of praise, not wide-ranging statements about race or socioeconomic background. There is no “right” to be earned, in the sense that factors beyond one's control determine one's eligibility to care, to be able to speak about human plight. Skloot may have committed a few faux pas by taking liberties of filling holes in the story for things that are unknowable about henrietta, but the message does not change. It may even seem condescending to some that Skloot explains in the preface that she will quote conversations and interviews as genuinely as possible; grammatical inconsistencies would be included as if preserving something akin to an anthropologist preserving the natural state of his subjects, another argument can be made that she is simply trying to remove herself from the narrative by allowing the authenticity of the world Henrietta Lacks lived in to become the focal point. Although some detractors may argue that Skloot's perspective cannot be legitimate because she is not like Henrietta, the plight of others should not be determined by superficial factors. The human condition is universal – empathy is universal - and so is the change that touched the world because of Henrietta, thus the right to tell the story belongs to anyone that understands its significance.