TILoHeLa Blog Post #2

Discuss the process of scientific inquiry in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Examine the often contradictory forces of altruism and profit as they influenced research related to HeLa. What are the risks and benefits of allowing profit to guide research? What are the obstacles involved with conducting research purely for altruistic reasons? (Random House)

It goes without saying that much of the scientific inquiry within Henrietta Lacks’ story is less than ethical, often even referred to as “immoral” and “deplorable.” This disposition, however, presents a conundrum when considering the purpose of the research conducted; that being to improve medical science in order to make life-saving discoveries. This driving force of altruism therein follows an “ends justifying a means” idea, where the sacrifices made, no matter how immoral or dirty, are seen as acceptable in order to provide a means to which humanity can benefit from. With respect to the HeLa cells, many ethical borders were disregarded for this supposed altruistic approach. First and foremost was the disregard of patient agreement and notification as Dr. Gey secretly took Henrietta’s cancer cells in order to conduct his research, though that was only the tip of the iceberg.

Once the HeLa cells themselves began to circulate amongst many laboratories worldwide, it would then be a matter of time before certain scientists would conduct unethical experiments. Scientists, such as Dr. Southam, would give culture research a rather evil image to the general public, conducting experiments that involved secretly injecting cancerous saline solution into patients with leukemia, and even healthy persons. Though his methods were potentially dangerous and irresponsible, his motive in conducting such experiments was to try and develop a way to make a person immune to cancer (which was not fully understood at the time) or to aid in developing a vaccine for it. Sadly, much was learned with such practices, although much harsher regulation would then be placed in biomedical research.

These profits gained, which can be considered in both a developmental and monetary means, motivate research to be conducted by many scientists, regardless of where they may actually fall within this ethical spectrum. On the plus side of such motivation, albeit there will be those who would abuse their prestigious position in academia, but there will also be the shining examples of ingenuity and respect for patients. The latter would guide research in a manner to which it would not only benefit humanity and understanding, but it would also do it in such a way that would not violate anyone’s human rights. As mentioned before, there still exists the risk that monetary profit or prestigious recognition (and many other possible risks) could drive even renowned researchers to put hedonistic practices above the betterment of humane treatment.

Considering these factors and many others, this essentially leaves the idea of altruism to be near unobtainable within such research in cell culture analysis. In order to receive funding, acknowledgement, and respect within the science community, new discoveries must be presented forward by a researcher, positive results must be gathered, and an insurmountable quantity of criteria must also be fulfilled. So many factors affect personal motivation for conducting research, and in the HeLa cells case, scientists were scrambling to submit new discoveries and bits of gathered information in order to gain recognition. Not only do these concepts contradict the idea of altruism, but so do the actual mistreatments of patients in the supposedly “acceptable” procedures, be it conducting human tests on prisoners or other cancer patients. The philosophy of altruism fails to apply when the process of aiding another sentient being requires the dismay of another, regardless if it were voluntary or justified in some other way.