As we close out the reading and discussion period on "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks," here's a final question, at least from me: Do you think Rebecca Skloot, as a journalist, remained unbiased and presented Henrietta's story without taking sides?
For a work of nonfiction (science/biography), some readers here in my office felt like she sympathized more with the family than objectively looked at the 'tissue issue' regarding patient consent. Others felt like Skloot sided with the scientists, and let Deborah tag along during the research phase in hopes that she would learn more about the science behind her mother's tissue sample.
Further, what did Skloot hope to accomplish by writing this book, and did she achieve what she set out to do? Was it a good thing for the Lacks family that she wrote this book? Do you believe that this attempt was different from previous attempts to write about the Lacks family and Henrietta?
For a work of nonfiction (science/biography), some readers here in my office felt like she sympathized more with the family than objectively looked at the 'tissue issue' regarding patient consent. Others felt like Skloot sided with the scientists, and let Deborah tag along during the research phase in hopes that she would learn more about the science behind her mother's tissue sample.
Further, what did Skloot hope to accomplish by writing this book, and did she achieve what she set out to do? Was it a good thing for the Lacks family that she wrote this book? Do you believe that this attempt was different from previous attempts to write about the Lacks family and Henrietta?