9th Honors Literature

Harrison High School STEM

Revised Activity 3.3.3 The Immortal Cells

Introduction
In this activity you will read the story of Henrietta Lacks, her family, and the doctors who created the
cell line. You will also investigate the various medical breakthroughs for which the HeLa cell line has
been responsible. Finally, you will investigate the debate surrounding the commodification, or
commercialization, of human body parts. You will discuss ownership of body parts and debate what
you should or should not be able to sell for profit.

Procedure
Part I: The Story Behind HeLa

1. Read the entire book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot.

2. Access and read the article titled “Henrietta’s Dance” written by Rebecca Skloot and
published in the April 2000 issue of the Johns Hopkins Magazine. It is accessible on the
Internet at http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0400web/01.html (Links to an external site.)Links
to an external site.

3. Access and read the Article titled “An Obsession with Culture” written by Rebecca Skloot and
published in the March 2001 issue of the University of Pittsburgh’s Pitt Magazine. It is
accessible on the Internet at: http://www.pittmag.pitt.edu/mar2001/culture.html (Links to
an external site.)Links to an external site..

4. Read the following bullets chronicling how the HeLa cell line has affected modern medicine.

 George Gey successfully cultures the first immortal human cell line using cells from
Henrietta’s cervix. It is given the name HeLa after the first two letters of Henrietta’s first
and last names. (1951)
 HeLa cells become the first living cells shipped via postal mail. (1952)
 HeLa cells were the first human cells frozen; this allowed for the close examination of cell
division.
 The Tuskegee Institute opens the first “HeLa factory,” supplying cells to laboratories and
researchers and operating as a nonprofit. Within a few years, HeLa was sold for profit.
(1952)
 Scientists use HeLa cells to help develop the polio vaccine. (1952)
 Scientists infected HeLa cells with many diseases such as mumps and measles, which
led to the creation of the modern field of virology.
 A geneticist in Texas was able to accurately calculate the number of chromosomes in a
human cell using HeLa. This eventually made it possible for doctors to diagnose
chromosomal disorders such as Down’s syndrome.(1953)
 HeLa cells become the first cells ever cloned. (1953)
  Chester Southam conducts experiments to see whether or not injections of HeLa cells
could cause cancer. (1954)
 HeLa cells were sent into space prior to any astronauts and then were included on the
first manned mission. (1960)
 HeLa cells are fused with mouse cells, creating the first animal-human hybrid cells.
(1965)
 HeLa cells allowed for advances in the field of medical ethics. After scientists injected
patients without their consent with cancer cells to discover how cancer spreads, medical
review boards and informed consent by patients were institutionalized. (1965 and 1966)
 Scientists exposed HeLa cells to radiation to better understand the effects of nuclear
radiation on human cells.
 Scientists used HeLa cells to better understand the invasiveness and infectiousness of
salmonella. (1973)
 HeLa cells were used to help uncover that the sexually transmitted virus called Human
Papilloma Virus causes cervical cancer. (1984)
 A scientist discovered the presence of an enzyme called a telomere that is used in a cell
to rebuild a cell’s telomeres. The presence of this enzyme in a cell causes cancer. (1989)
 The early cloning technology started because of HeLa cells led to isolating stem cells,
cloning entire animals, and in vitro fertilization.
 Scientists exposed HeLa cells to M. tuberculosis to learn how the disease attacks human
cells. (1993)
 Researchers used HeLa cells to test nanotechnology by injecting the cells with iron
nanowire and silica-coated nanoparticles. (2005)
 HeLa cells are used to test potential cancer drugs, such as those used to treat breast
cancer and leukemia.
 HeLa cells are used to test various products such as cosmetics, drugs, household
chemicals, viruses, and biological weapons.

5. Record any differences you find among the four sources and account for what causes the
differences. These may be differences in facts, styles, genres, etc.
1) The book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is different from the other articles, because
even though it is a non-fiction text, it is written in a narrative format instead of informational
like the 2 articles. These differences are expected because they are written for different
purposes. One article is for the Johns Hopkins Magazine and the other one is for the
University of Pittsburgh’s Pitt Magazine. The book is written for a wider audience and would
need to be longer and formatted differently to get all the information and stories into it.
2) In the article “Henrietta’s Dance”, Lawrence’s wife is named Barbra. In the book The
Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, her name is Bobbette. This could have been different
because oral history for the book/article could come from different sources since Rebecca
Skloot was not interviewing the family at the time of this article.
3) The bulleted list states the major findings that HeLa cells were used in creating. The book
and articles talked about the story of the cells from the beginning, like where and why they
were removed. This difference again could have been because of source differences,
intended audiences, and/or intended purposes.
4) In addition to the reason above, the book goes into more detail about the major findings that
HeLa was used for and the implication of them. The bulleted list only gives an overview of
what happened in each year. There are big gaps in years which the book filled with smaller
discoveries made.
5) The article featured in the Johns Hopkins Magazine had more detail on Henrietta’s family,
while the Pitt Magazine article focused in the scientific aspect. The book went into great
detail on both. This could be because they were meant for different people. The people at
 Johns Hopkins knew Henrietta and her family, and the University of Pittsburgh didn’t. The
book told stories of the family and the scientific aspect so people reading it could understand
the importance of both parts.

Part II: Medical Ethics

6. Read the position statements in the table. Use reliable Internet websites to research each
position statement and create arguments for and against each position statement.

Position Statement Support for Position Support Against Position

People should have the
right to control what’s
done with their tissues
once tissues are removed
from their bodies.
Giving patients property
rights of their tissues
might hinder research
because fewer people
would allow the use of
their tissue, restricting
access to the necessary
raw materials.
Tissues taken from a
patient and sold for profit
should profit the individual
or the individual’s family
from whom the tissue was
taken.
Allowing patients to profit
from their tissues would
hinder scientific progress
because patients would
hold out for excessive
profits.
People can sell their
sperm, their eggs, and
The tissue is originally from
their body, making it their
property. It is still their
genetic make-up once it has
been removed, so it is still a
part of them, even though it
is not in their body.
People like to know what
their cells are being used
for, and giving informed
consent allows that. This
might hinder research
slightly because people
might not like or agree with
the research being done.
The issue is part of the
patient’s body and it being
sold. This should mean that
the patient’s body is being
sold. This should give the
patient “property rights”
over their own tissues.
This would hinder scientific
progress because people
would try and negotiate the
price of their tissues and
samples, causing a lull in
purchase of the samples.
People would want more
money than necessary for
their samples.
Organs are just clusters of
cells, which is the same
Once tissues or blood
samples are taken from a
person, they are no longer
considered a part of that
person since they are just a
bunch of cells now. They
cannot grow into another
person because they are
specialized. DNA might
make up a person; however it
cannot be used to make
another person from this
small sample.
Research would not be
hindered because of this.
People can culture cells to
use and that will help be able
to have more testing material
if necessary. Some people
would still donate because it
would help others.
Tissues taken from patients
are no longer part of the
patient’s body and therefore
have no financial tie to the
patient. They should not get
paid for something that is not
theirs.
This would not hinder
scientific progress because
the prospect of money being
made from the donation of
tissues or blood samples
makes it more appealing.
People would be more likely
to give samples if money was
involved.
Since selling organs is
illegal by federal law, it
 their blood. There is no
reason they should not be
able to sell their tissues
and organs.
thing bodily tissues are but
on a smaller scale. If
someone can sell tissues
then why can’t they sell
organs?
raises the question of “if it
was legal, would people
find illegal ways to get the
organs they want to sell?”.
Organs are illegal to sell
for a reason; however you
can donate them to be
transplanted into people.

Conclusion
7. In your opinion, was Dr. Gey’s use of Henrietta Lacks’ cells unethical? Support your
response with evidence from all three sources.

I do think it was unethical for Dr. Gey to use Henrietta’s cells without consent. However, in
the 1950’s, it was not common for patients to be informed of what their tissues were being
used for, or if samples were even taken (Henrietta’s Dance). Had the cells not grown, there
would not be the debate of whether it was unethical because most people wouldn’t have
heard of HeLa cells.

8.
If Dr. Gey had not been able to use or to grow the cells that became the HeLa cell line, how
might medical research and health care be different now? Support your response with
evidence.

If the cell had not been “immortal”, then there could possibly be no polio vaccine or some
chemotherapy drugs (bullets 5 and 20 above). It would have taken longer to figure certain
things about cancer, such as the moment when a cell turns cancerous and the enzyme that
keeps cancer cells growing. Because of the research HeLa has been able to provide, I
believe that the world of health care and medicine would be completely different. People still
use HeLa cells to this day, which cost up to $167 (The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks).

9. Do you feel that the Lacks family should be compensated for the use of Henrietta’s cancer
cells for scientific study? Explain your answer.

I feel that Henrietta’s family should be compensated for their loss and the scientific
contributions of HeLa cells. If people did not feel like they should be given money for the
cells, the family could be compensated with healthcare benefits. The family deserves to be
compensated because they lost their mother/wife/cousin/ or other relative name, and were
unaware of the research and discoveries made from the cells. Hospitals and laboratories
could give the Lacks family a portion of the profit of selling the cells because they are much
more expensive now. This means there is even more of a profit gap that could be spared.

Adapted from
© 2013 Project Lead The Way, Inc.
Principles of Biomedical Science Activity 3.3.3 and Student Resource Sheet 3.3.3