portrait of Henrietta Lacks with lines building on her image to a grid of connected dots

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

by Rebecca Skloot

Start Free Trial

Student Question

Was Rebecca Skloot biased or persuasive in "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"?

Quick answer:

Rebecca Skloot in "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" presents a balanced view, emphasizing both scientific advancements and ethical concerns. She acknowledges her belief in science and medicine but also highlights the human and ethical dimensions of Henrietta Lacks' story. Skloot is neither biased nor overly persuasive; instead, she presents the facts surrounding the ethical implications of using Lacks' cells without consent, encouraging readers to consider the broader ethical impacts.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Reading this book opens up so many questions about ethics, race and science. The impact that this story has had on science is unbelievable, yet the impact it has on a person and they're families can be devastating.

Rebecca Skloot is a science writer, who writes about science and medicine. Going into writing this story, she had a very scientific mind about things. She believes in medicine and in science, however in writing this book, she also saw another side to equation. She realized that this was a real person. She also realized what Henrietta's family has gone through all these years. During the time that Henrietta went for treatment and had her tissues harvested, there were no legal ramifications set up for people's consent. Although Henrietta was a poor black woman, that really had no reason on why she wasn't asked for her consent. This was just the standard procedure. There are tons of cells and tissues still used today, that we don't know where or who they came from. That in turn does not give a person the right to take something form someone, without consulting the family. 

In my opinion, Rebecca Skloot shows us that although she believes in medicine and science, she also believes in the dignity of a human being. She also believes in the rights to Henrietta's family. She was neither biased nor persuasive. She was stating the facts about what had happened, and the ramifications, both good and bad, that this story has on all of us. It all comes down to a matter of ethics and the the impact that science has on medicine today.

Get Ahead with eNotes

Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Approved by eNotes Editorial