Reply to comment

 Notes: 11/16/2010

Recap of Path to Paradise

-Limitations of the personal interview as a method for learning

-Individualistic view doesn’t allow interpretation of the larger implications of the work

-Tensions between individual and political

Ckosarek: web papers- images overpower the sustenance of the paper and incorporate different elements that are unrelated to the material

Ayaseaver: images help explicitly state what I am trying to say, but should not be too structured into the text

-Images draw the reader in  

-Images challenge your writing and how you write

Ckosarek: hyper linking is responding to the lower attention span

Katherine Hayles- different kinds of reading

-Web papers allow for a new type of writing and experimentation

Henrietta Lacks’ Immortal Life

Smacholdt: book reads like a novel- Science more accessible- Brought in a human and scientific perspective

Pfischer: Saw the book in a political sense- confused on what genre it really was- very accessible and narrative driven

Veritatemdilexi: Henrietta Lacks’ responsibility for her health was not very much addressed- we should think also about the individual responsibility of the patient

Owl: Looked up the genre of the book- blamed the scientist for using the cells but then the genre could have persuaded my opinion of it- genre set up my expectations

Maht: Interested more in the biographical aspects than biological aspects of the novel

EVD: Interested in the biological aspects of the novel- raised questions about the family and how they may not realize that her cells cannot bring her back

Platano: Despite not being interested in science, the book made me ask questions that I would not have before

TYL: To not question is a general trend because society trusts people with more knowledge- Interested in Skloot’s search to find the family and her persistent- She integrates the stories well

Rachelr: Read the book previously in a biology pathway- we do not have much rights over our tissues- larger ethical questions that still exist in today’s society- doctors that dealt with Henrietta were manipulative but was not purely their responsibility- her questions about the book were ethical

SandraG: I do not think it was unethical to use Henrietta’s cells for experiments, but the profit they made from it should have also benefitted the family –engaged by the doctor’s responsibility to the patient- lying to the family and the patients was not acceptable

VeritatemDilexi: We have to realize the time that this happened there were racial tensions that

Ayaseaver: There was a free share of information- there is less of a clear line to discovery and who should profit- it is not very clear cut

Owl: They tested the kids but did not tell them why

FatCatRex: What can you learn about a person through their family- questioned the methodology of how to find out about someone through someone else- biases- used their own perceptions and experiences to describe Henrietta- How were they a source of information

Ckosarek: Read the book as a source of tracking the scientific advances society has made- related what she read to the Human Genome Project- how far does the compensation go?

TYL: The cells are not “her”

Owl and SandraG: They should have just asked, they probably would have gotten her consent

EVD: Henrietta more than likely would have said no if they asked her for her cells

-The fact the cells came for her keeps us reading despite the fact that we know that the cells are not her

Jaranda: There is a person behind the cells- she was engaged biographically

Ayaseaver: Is not enjoying the book- her inclusion of dialogue and novel-like writing style makes me uncomfortable- narrative ethics

-Skloot says at the beginning that this is a work of non-fiction, but we say that this is not true, there are many levels of fabrication- Who is lying? - Children really did not know her

-Question of genre- generic markers of the book and how does it guide us to read it

Veritatemdilexi: Medical school- learns to dehumanize the body- beings with a challenge to medical community

Ayaseaver: Challenge to how we treated patients in the past

TYL: What if Henrietta’s cancer was treated and she survived. What do you think would have happened? –If she had survived, certain things would not have overlooked

TGarber: I do not think that Henrietta would have had a say on to whether her cells could be used if she had survived cancer based on the time she was in, she was colored in a society where she had no voice

Ayaseaver: Would she still think that her cells are a part of her?

TYL: The family does not have a real connection to Henrietta’s cells

Veritatemdilexi: Her structure: Life, Death, and Immortality makes no sense

SandraG: Each cell has your entire genome- her cells are immortal- Something that made her existence is in every one of those cells

Ayaseaver: Once it is given a way, cells have

Veritatemdilexi: What does Skloot mean by immortal?

EVD: She is writing as a story and immortal is part of that story

TYL: She is writing as a call to action and possibly tissue rights

EVD: People have rights now to their cells- stem cells- you can make a human being- cancer cells cannot produce a human being- Religion in question?

TYL: Tissue would have regenerated

EVD: Argument is about money

Rachelr: Her kids did not know their mother- cannot afford medical care, but other people can benefit from their mother’s cells

EVD: Should Henrietta and her family get credit for their random regeneration

TYL: Is Henrietta immortal?

SandraG: Her cells are still part of her

TYL: What is more important: her cells or the woman?

EVD: Her story is immortal

TYL: For so many years it was dead.

Ckosarek; Makes 2 different stories: the woman and the issue of the cells

Rachelr: The title in question

Ckosarek: The title is intriguing- asks what is alive and what is not- what is life

- If you think of the collectivist methodology, is the language of the book humanistic scientific? Is it collectivist or individualistic?

Rachelr: It is a good pairing of both

Ayaseaver: Character driven non-fiction- she creates a plot- she makes it into a story than scientific events

Veritatemdilexi: Questions credentials- is she qualified to speak about science?

-How can you qualify or “unqualify” her

-She has a scientific background and writing background

-Are the cells treated as individuals or part of the collective

Ayaseaver: Book talks about the trillion metric tons- individual but separate from her cells

TYL: See Henrietta as an individual, but cells as a collective- collective individual