Ian Hilton

Anthropology
October 6, 2014

!
!

Immortal
Ethical questions concerning the use of HeLa cells in research.

!
Introduction
In 1951, a woman named Henrietta Lacks walked into Johns Hopkins University Hospital
in Maryland. She had been referred there by her local physician, since it was the only major
hospital in the area that would treat African-Americans. After complaining about a painful knot
in her womb the doctor inspected Lacks cervix and discovered a small purple growth of cells
on the cervical wall. In order to check for cancer, a biopsy was performed that produced two
tissue samples. One sample went to the lab for testing, the other to a researcher named George
Otto Gey.
Gey worked in Universitys Tissue Culture Laboratory, and anytime the hospital had a
cervical cancer biopsy, they would send it to him in order to facilitate his research. The problem
is that the research conducted on these tissues was done without ever thinking to ask the patients
permission. This was a time long before medical research consent forms were ever written,
there were no rules about using tissue left over from clinical procedures in research. (Collins,
2013) Gey and numerous scientists of the day had been working on a way of growing human
cells outside of the body. For decades, scientists had been trying to get these biopsies to grow in
a lab environment (that is, for the cells to multiply when placed in a test tube full of nutrients),

IMMORTAL

!1

but the samples would die after only a few short days. However, when Gey gave his assistant the
cells biopsied from Henrietta Lacks, they grew.
These HeLa cells had an amazing property not seen before: they could be grown
continuously in laboratory conditions. Thats right, the HeLa cell lines were perpetual,
everlasting, death-defying, or whatever other word you want to use to describe immortal.
This property meant that researchers would now have a handy stock of cells available for
their experiments. It also meant that rather than each researcher using different cell types,
labs all around the world could have access to cells of a common origin for their
experiments.
And thats just what happened; in short order, HeLa became the human cell line for
all kinds of scientific inquiry. While other immortalized lines are now available, HeLa
remains the most widely used cell line in biomedical research. In fact, they are referred to
in more than 74,000 scientific publications.
HeLa cells have been used to explore the complex processes involved in the
growth, differentiation, and death of cellsprocesses that underlie a vast array of human
diseases. HeLa cells have also served as the foundation for developing modern vaccines,
including the polio vaccine; understanding viruses and other infectious agents; and
devising new medical techniques, such as in vitro fertilization. (Collins, 2013)
The cells harvested to create the HeLa line were collected without the informed consent of
Henrietta Lacks, but because this was done before the writing of medical consent laws, no laws
were broken. Now, over 60 years later, who should own the rights to the HeLa cells? Should
they be public domain? Are they privately owned? If so, what does that mean about our concept

IMMORTAL

!2

of ownership? Can a person own another person? Can you own the information contained within
your cells? One might say this is the most logical conclusion, that all cells and information
contained within them belongs to the individual they are a part of, but that point, cells become
just like any other property, subject to estate law, civil law, etc. With the recent Citizens United
ruling, corporations are offered the same rights as a person, and my fear is that the privatization
of genetic information will lead to a corporate commercialization of genomes. If a corporation is
a person, what is to stop it from owning the genetic information of its employees? If that
corporation is a biotech company and they develop a cell with is identical to the HeLa cell except
for one nucleotide, do they own the rights to that new cell? Obviously, both of these scenarios
paint a disturbing picture concerning the future of genetic information and who owns it. Within
the context of Biological Anthropology, these questions are monumentally important to
investigate due to the fact that the entire field relies on the concept of evolution, which itself lies
on a foundation of genetics. The genetic sequencing, alteration, and experimentation on HeLa
cells, therefore, has a direct effect on the techniques and tools we use to study biological
anthropology today.

Viewpoint 1
HeLa cells have provided countless medical advancements that we use today and should be
considered public domain. The UN Declaration of Rights states Everyone has the right freely to
participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific
advancement and its benefits. (UN Declaration of Rights, Article 27 (1)) This article does not
state anything about the way those scientific advancements are achieved, nor whether those

IMMORTAL

!3

achievements are done so with legal clout. Those that stand to benefit from the viewpoint are not
limited to a genetically isolated family, or even a specific entity, but the science of human
biology as a whole. Because the the benefits to humanity are so great, restricting access to the
information within HeLa cells would slow the progress of science. Although the consequential
effect on the Lacks family is great, the overwhelming benefits offset this cost, and it would be
immoral and indeed, a crime against humanity, to deny science the HeLa cell.
Secondly, although the Nuremberg Code states that the voluntary consent of the human
subject is absolutely essential, (NIH, 2014) this international code only applies to military
personnel in times of war. It is unfortunate for the Lacks family that informed consent laws
applying to civilians werent enacted until several years after Henriettas biopsy, but ex post facto
laws have been deemed unconstitutional and are forbidden in federal and state laws by the US
Constitution. This means that, although some act may later be considered illegal, those who
commit the act before the law was passed are not guilty of a crime. In the case of HeLa cells, the
physician who took a biopsy without Henrietta Lacks consent and subsequently gave it to
George Gey had done no wrong in the eyes of the law, even though the act was criminalized
years later. Because no crime was committed and Gey chose to distribute HeLa cells to other
researchers around the word (effectively under what would be interpreted as public domain),
proponents of this viewpoint argue that the information in the cells ought to be maintained free to
the public and under no legal or personal restriction. Critics argue that the rights violations in the
case of HeLa cells are not subject to the ban on ex post facto, and often cite the case of Calder v.
Bull.

IMMORTAL

!4

In a unanimous decision the Court drew a distinction between criminal rights and
"private rights," arguing that restrictions against ex post facto laws were not designed to
protect citizens' contract rights. Justice Chase noted that while all ex post facto laws are
retrospective, all retrospective laws are not necessarily ex post facto. (Oyez, 2014)
This would mean that Henriettas biopsy is retroactively determined illegal, and that future
use without her estates consent would be forbidden. Furthermore, the Lacks family cites privacy
concerns, stating that DNA found in the cells can successfully be used to identify members of the
family, a claim that was found to be true through experimentation.

Viewpoint 2
The HeLa cells and, in particular, the genetic information contained within them is
privately owned. The Lacks family argues that the DNA sequence in Henriettas tumor belonged
to her exclusively and was inherited by her family upon her death. Biological anthropology tells
us that releasing this information to the public is the equivalent of releasing the medical records
of not only her, but all of her family members as well, a major violation of privacy. Henriettas
daughter, Deborah, cited concerts that HeLa cells could be used to clone her mother, and that the
ubiquity of the cells means her mother will never rest in peace.
A possible consequence of genetic data being considered private property is that the
information may be subject to tax, inheritance law, and even copyright law. While it is relatively
obvious that the motivations behind the Lacks are innocuous, corporations have historically
shown a much poorer track record. Medical and pharmaceutical entities stand a lot to gain if they
are allowed to commercialize human genomic engineering and sales. While this might have

IMMORTAL

!5

some positives such as specially designed cells that are grown for specific tasks and
environments, one must not forget that these cells are human tissue. In fact, these tissues could
potentially be used to create an organism that, in the eyes of the law, belongs to the corporation.
Can a corporation own a person? Was slavery not abolished?
Furthermore, if DNA information is privately owned, it stands to reason that the genetic
information gathered from Henrietta Lacks was stolen and is subject to criminal law and
reparations, with damages being owed to the family. The problem, however, is in deciding
blame. If the information was stolen, who was it stolen by? While some argue that the
Nuremberg Code was violated by the Hopkins physician, one must remember that the code
applies within military conduct at times of war, and US citizens were not affected by the tribunal
resolution. All other laws written with regards to medical consent have been done nonretroactively, meaning that the physician has committed no crime in the eyes of the law. If we
instead place the blame on George Otto Gey, it becomes difficult to argue that Gey stole anything
at all, but was instead the recipient of stolen property. Its important to note that Gey never sold
the HeLa cells he discovered, but instead shared them freely with his contemporaries in the spirit
of collaborative research. No profits were made on his behalf, so there is no way to asses the
total loss sustained by the Lacks family in order to determine a price point for reparations. The
unfortunate truth of the American justice system is that justice cannot be had without three
elements: a crime, a victim, and a perpetrator. I feel like its difficult enough to determine if a
crime has even been committed, and if so, no perpetrator can be named. The obvious victims are
the Lacks family (who are still living well below the poverty line), but in the eyes of the law,
there is no way to give them the justice they seek without the elements needed by the court.

IMMORTAL

!6


Conclusion
In the eyes of the law, it remains clear that no crime was committed at the time of biopsy,
but this does not mean that the Lacks family was not wronged. This wrong demands justice, but
it is unfortunate that the only way that we can define that justice is through law. While I agree
with the Lacks claim that they are wronged, I do not see the wrong as criminal. Because this
wrong is more philosophical in nature, there is nothing that can be done go give justice to the
Lacks through legal means. Instead, a charitable organization providing scholarships for
members of the family has been established, providing a small semblance of gratitude from the
scientific community at large.
While there is an obviously large effect on the general public with HeLa being used in
everything from syphilis research to zero-gravity experiments, it is important to note that there is
a deeper, yet more subtle discussion going on. The topic of HeLa directly affects every human
being on the earth by asking the question Who, if anyone, owns the DNA in your cells? HeLa has
played a major role in the development of numerous medical advances, having been cited in over
75,000 scholarly papers. If these valuable cells were discontinued and made unavailable, it could
take decades to develop another immortal line with similar attributes (if one could be established
at all), setting back the human biological sciences in the process.
Though this topic directly effects biological anthropology by defining the use of tools in
genetic research, it also has a wider effect on medicine, property law, the ownership of genetic
information, and even philosophy. My resolution remains on the side of freedom of information.
Pandoras box has been opened, and it has rustled a few people in the process. Aside from

IMMORTAL

!7

volunteering time and money to the family, there is little, if anything, we can do that will begin
to bring justice to their peon. Though Henrietta Lacks never asked to be a miracle, you cant
choose the cards that life deals you, and can only hope to leave a better place than it was before
you got here. I can only hope to have the opportunity to improve the world for as many people as
the Lacks, and would be honored if there are IaHi cells in a test tube 60 years from now.

IMMORTAL

!8

References

Abumrad, Jad, and Robert Krulwich, prods. "Henrietta's Tumor." Radiolab. WNYC. New York,
New York, 7 May 2010. Radiolab.org. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

"CALDER v. BULL." Calder v. Bull. Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

!
Callaway, Ewan. "Deal Done over HeLa Cell Line." Nature 500 (2013): 132-33. Nature.com.
Nature Publishing Group, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

!
Collins, Francis. "HeLa Cells: A New Chapter in An Enduring Story." NIH Directors Blog.
National Institutes of Health, 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.

!
"The Nuremberg Code." Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under
Control Council Law No. 10 1 (1949): n. pag. NIH.gov. National Institutes of Health. Web. 7
Oct. 2014.

!
Skloot, Rebecca. "The Miracle Woman." The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York: O,
The Oprah Magazine, 2010. N. pag. Oprah.com. Hearst Corporation. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

!
IMMORTAL

!9

Skloot, Rebecca. "The Woman on the Photograph." The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. San
Diego: Crown, 2010. N. pag. Rebecca Skloot The Immortal Life Comments.
RebeccaSkloot.com. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.

!
Smith, Stephanie. "Henrietta Lacks' Family Finally Gets Say in Genetic Destiny. Can We Control
Our Own?" CNN.com. Cable News Network, 11 Aug. 2013. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.

!
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

!
Wagner, Jennifer K. "Genomic Research Ethics: Special Rules for HeLa Cells." Genomics Law
Report RSS. Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, 27 Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.

IMMORTAL

!10