Senior kinesiology major
You may have heard of the HeLa cell line, and that’s no surprise: The line is frequently used to study everything from diseases such as AIDS to the effects of radiation exposure. Without the HeLa cell, cures for many diseases would never have been discovered.
With all that impact, some people may wonder, “Where did these incredible cells come from?”
They came from Henrietta Lacks, a black woman who was receiving treatments for cervical cancer at the renowned Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore in 1951. While undergoing treatment for her cancer, samples of her cervix, both healthy and cancerous, were harvested without her permission.
Unfortunately, Lacks succumbed to her cancer and died, but her cells lived on. The biopsied tissue from Lacks’ cervical tumor were given to Dr. George Otto Gey, who discovered that certain cells from Lacks’ tumor were unique in the sense that they could be kept alive and reproduced indefinitely. Gey isolated this cell line, reproduced it and made it widely available for researchers.
Almost 40 years after Mrs. Lacks’ death, the issue and her situation were brought before the Supreme Court, which ruled that a person’s discarded tissues and cells were no longer their own and could thus be commercialized.
Mrs. Lacks’ case is interesting because while her cells were removed without her consent, they were ultimately used to benefit mankind by helping to cure various diseases.
Following this line of logic, why are so many people so opposed to the idea of using embryonic stem cells? I know it cannot be a point-by-point comparison, but the situations are similar enough.
Embryonic stem cells hold untold potential to treat a multitude of diseases. If we can capitalize on the potential HeLa cells have to help humanity, then doesn’t it logically follow that we should be allowed to use embryonic stem cells in the same manner?
People seem to be able to rationalize the theft of cells from a dying woman, who was undoubtedly conscious, but they have a problem using a small ball of as few as 100 cells no one can conclusively state is truly conscious.
These cells are the result of genetic material from two separate people. It can be argued that because no development of a nervous system is present, that ball of cells is simply the combined genetic property of two people. As you can see, the idea of genetic ownership can be convoluted and confusing.
Hopefully as time goes on, the lines of cell ownership will become less and less blurred, and we can figure out how to use these new technologies to benefit all people.
Ian Lacy is a senior kinesiology major. He can be reached at ilacydbk@gmail.com.
