In the Midwestern United States, a
farmer reaps a higher yield from his corn crop than he did twenty years ago due
to the genetically modified insect resistance of his crops. The same day, a doctor
in England prescribes a young diabetic boy recombinant insulin produced by a
harmless strain of E. coli bacteria. On
the other side of the earth, a flower shop receives its shipment of a new
designer product—glowing orchids. Just as we are all actors in the play of
global health, we are all players in the rapidly changing game of the
biotechnology industry. Though its myriad of agricultural, medical, and
recreational benefits are easily recognized, biotechnology is also the subject
of ethical controversy in its development and application of new innovations.
The bittersweetly ironic story of
Henrietta Lacks details one of the most pervasive cases of ethical controversy
associated with the development of biotechnology. Global Health Watch 3 reports that “[a]n estimated 99 per cent of
knowledge about human microbiology is believed to have been derived” from the
African American farmer’s cancerous cervical cells alone (208). However, while
pharmaceutical companies and research institutions have endlessly profited off
of the information contained in her tissue cells, they were taken by doctors without
her permission. Furthermore, Lacks quietly died “at the age of 31, was buried
in an unmarked grave,… and many of her descendants suffered ill-health from
under-treated medical conditions because they had no health insurance” (208). The
absence of proper credit to Lacks until after her death and her offspring’s
lifelong misery without proper health care highlights the often obscured
inequity and sacrifice involved in the advancement of biotechnology. With the
scarcity of truly consistent and exact documentation of procedures within the
hurried and chaotic confines of hospitals, it’s impossible to know how many
other individuals besides Lacks have had their genetic information inspected
and their cells examined under a microscope without consent. Though the crucial
information contained in Henrietta Lacks’ cells has undoubtedly saved countless
lives since her passing, it’s difficult to ignore some of the haunting conclusions
to Lacks’ story: how much of ourselves do we have a right to? How much of the
media presents only meager half-truths about lauded biotechnological
breakthroughs?
Ironically the same institutions,
researchers, and innovators whose discoveries provide mankind with a sense of
opportunity simultaneously establish anxiety and conflict within society. On
October 20th, 2009, Korean composer and lyricist Tablo tweeted, “Doesn’t
the world inside a black and white photograph seem more real? It’s because the
real world is losing its color”. Relating directly to the Lacks case, a black
and white photo, which reduces the thousands of colors of life to mere
monochromatic shades, mirrors the stark contrast in socioeconomic status and race
that the Lacks family experienced. It’s possible that the family didn’t receive
direct compensation for Henreitta’s contribution to modern medical knowledge due
to her low economic status, color of her skin, and the ignorance of others. In
addition, the people involved in the biotech industry can be related to the
photographer as they manipulated the picture of the Lacks family’s lives,
immortalizing their lives in history like how a photo freezes a moment.
Tablo’s quote also grasps the larger
issue of the rift between those involved in the development of biotechnology
and the ordinary members of society that eventually use their inventions. Many
details within a color photo are lost when converted its black and white skeleton,
similar to how health institutions and media filter out information and reduce
it to an airbrushed version that is presented to the public. When analyzed on a
more extreme level, the absence of complete and unedited information presents a
hypocritical situation—the biotech industry, whose main premise is improving
the quality of human lives and health, is feeding a detrimental inequality of
knowledge by concealing information.
As pessimistic and discouraging the
idea that the biotech industry is more concerned with our wallets than our
wellbeing seems, in a world where money plays an essential role in our lives it
may be a bitter reality. However, that
doesn’t mean that the biotech moguls, with all their knowledge and funds, hold
absolute power over ordinary citizens.
Though Tablo equates life with the
monochromatic and sharp perspective of a black and white photo, in reality it
is the individual that holds the camera and decides which filter through which
to view the world. This picture represents the situation that society is in
with regards to the biotech industry and the choice that every member of
society holds. The people on the lit path symbolize everyday people— the fact
that their faces can’t be seen aids in imagining that they could be anyone. They
symbolize Henrietta Lacks and her family; they symbolize anyone who has used
biotechnology and benefits from its uses. The streetlights that light the path
metaphorically translate to the knowledge that is provided by the biotech organizations
and the media. It’s common sense to stick to well lit paths at night in
unfamiliar areas because it’s dangerous to take routes with less lighting—there
could be suspicious people or dangerous animals around—just like how it’s safer
and easier to make decisions about personal health based on the information given
by those with authority. Although it’s comforting to walk down a
pre-established, secure path, exploring other options provides benefits as
well.
Like children are often scared of the
dark because they imagine all sorts of baddies lurking in the unknown, humans are often apprehensive about breaking habits due to the fear of losing security. However, in order to find the path that
provides the most benefits, it’s up to the individual to ask questions, investigate
the shadows, seek alternative routes, develop a more holistic viewpoint, and create
new light to bring color to the muddled dark of the unknown. Even if it turns
out the shadows hold no better option, by exposing oneself to what exists
around the relatively small area of “known” it will be easier to understand not
only the benefits and repercussions of the biotech industry, but the sacrifice
and obstacles as well.
If we don’t become the main actors of our lives, and take
responsibility to search for the brightest future for ourselves, then who will?
in class quote: Global Health Watch 3: An Alternative World Health Report (2011)
The specific statement in which I am replying to from Allison Kuo’s blog post is in the fourth paragraph and follows her conclusion about how society as a whole only sees the “airbrushed” version of an idea/innovation and is stated: “When analyzed on a more extreme level, the absence of complete and unedited information presents a hypocritical situation—the biotech industry, whose main premise is improving the quality of human lives and health, is feeding a detrimental inequality of knowledge by concealing information.” (Kuo)
ReplyDeleteI agree with the claim that Kuo is making here about the biotechnological innovations that are being mainstreamed. Biotechnology is becoming more widely accepted in all medical industries: pharmaceutical, surgery, organ replacement, and even education. A possible conclusion that I come to when thinking why biotechnology has spread so fast and in every discipline, is the growing need for quick solutions to long term problems. We are all a part of a world that focuses on instant gratification and working within strict deadlines. If a pill can end vitamin deficiencies or an engineered structure replaces the need for outdated practices then global powers agree that progress is being made. While some agree that progress is being made, too often long term success is not a part of the advances forged in biotechnology. This quote focuses on the fact that in the superior field of biotechnology the information that is distributed to the public is often stripped of all contexts giving it misleading connotations or circulated knowing that only a part of the information is being provided. After reading this quote I was left with the impression that Kuo is claiming that the field of biotechnology is not following ethical precautions when guiding the populace in regards to new health innovations. I think that this is something individuals need to be aware of so when the time comes where biotechnology is a part of a potential solution, an educated decision can be made. After reading this blog I viewed the biotechnology world in a much more critical light. I thought of questions like: what is being kept secret? Why does it need to be secret? What am I overlooking after reading published information about biotechnology? One of the most important qualities that someone can have is to question all information that is presented to the populace. Blind faith is a form of naivety that has the potential to do more harm than most people believe. The fields of health care, medicine, and global health are frequently misinterpreted or confused by society leading to an unquestioning confidence in authorities in these fields. Overall I think that the author wanted to leave the audience with a spur of skepticism to guide our thoughts in a direction where we think for ourselves. Reiterating the message this blog left with me: when it comes to healthcare individuals need to make educated decisions through personal investigation NOT through mass produced information presented by the field of biotechnology.
Upon reading your post, I was reminded of a class in high school where I read the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. The book explains the tragic life of Henrietta Lacks and the importance of her HeLa cells in medical history. The author follows the story of Henrietta’s living daughter and her quest to find justice for the misuse of her mother’s cancerous cells taken from a routine biopsy. Her daughter began her research for her mother’s stolen cells upon finding out about the widespread use of HeLa cells in labs across the world after her mother’s death. HeLa cells have been used in numerous experiments by biotech companies that developed treatments such as chemotherapy, the polio vaccine, cloning, amongst many others that have helped save countless lives. Her kids lived mostly in poverty without healthcare while biotech companies around the globe profited from her cells. Overall, I agree with the ideas of your blog post and found your points very intriguing. Since biotech companies may not always be looking out for our best interest, it is important to take responsibility for our paths and explore all the options, even if they may be unknown.
ReplyDeleteI really agree and connect with the main point in your blog post. It is important to ask questions and explore the “dark” in our lives in order to shed some light into the unknown. Because who’s to say that it’s all bad if we haven’t even explored it for ourselves. The unknown is simply just that, the unknown, unless we take the initiative to push across boundaries and fears to fully understand what lurks in the background. In the case of Mrs. Lacks, she simply did as the doctors told her and did not question her treatment. Who knows what could have happened if she had questioned her treatment or asked what was done with her biopsy sample. She could have possibly been given better treatment that might not have ended in a tragically painful death due to excessive radiation treatment. Or she could have possibly known about the use of her cancerous cells in creating the first cultured human cells that are still alive today. We need to take into account the example of Henrietta Lacks into our own lives. From our healthcare to other day to day events, we need to question the unknown instead of shying away from it and staying on the lit path. Like you mentioned in your post, it is our responsibility to fight for our best possible future because we are the only ones fighting for it. For example, many diseases, such as cancer, have multiple different treatment plans that may have the same outcome, but different side effects. It is important to look into all the possibilities, and not just those outlined by a single doctor or company. We must become patient advocates for ourselves and fight for the treatment that is best for us by investigating for ourselves and not just simply listening to the information given by a single doctor or biotech company. Also, I like how you bring up the fact that we are all players in the biotech field in one way or another. Whether we benefit from medical advancements from the biotech industry or purchase food produced from genetically modified plants. The biotech industry plays a role in each and every one of our lives, but this role does not necessarily need to be negative. Many biotech companies conceal information from their clients, although their goals aim to improve the health and quality of human lives. It is important that we do not let them control our lives with this limitation of knowledge. In order to prevent this, we must as mentioned previously in my comment and your post, ask questions and be an advocate for ourselves and others.