Monthly Archives: June 2011

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Posted on by
Reply

 Reviewed: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Immortal-Life-Henrietta-Lacks/

On October 4th 1951 an African American woman named Henrietta Lacks died in John Hopkins Hospital in East Baltimore, finally succumbing to multiple tumours which had metastasized from her cervical cancer. Despite her death, the contribution she has made indirectly to modern science continues to this day.  In February 1951, when Henrietta was first administered radium treatment for cervical cancer, a sample of cancerous cells were taken from her cervix – without her knowledge. Henrietta’s cells provided an ‘immortal’ cell line that would perpetually divide when cultured. These cells were named ‘HeLa’ using the first two letters of the forename and surname of Henrietta Lacks. The cells soon became famous worldwide but Henrietta herself remained unknown.

This intriguing story is told masterfully by Rebecca Skloot in her book ‘The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks’. It is a story about HeLa cells, but also about Henrietta Lacks and the family who survived her. Although HeLa was distributed to research laboratories all over the world, the name of the cell donor remained largely unknown, often being given incorrectly as Helen Lane or Helen Larson. Cultured cells of HeLa have been grown in bulk, sold and distributed worldwide often at a large profit, and yet the family of Henrietta Lacks were not informed about the use of Henrietta’s cells or remunerated in any way. Skloot has attempted to redress this imbalance and bring into the open the full story.

This is a book about science, but it is certainly not a book heavy in scientific details. If you are only interested in learning the technical details of how HeLa cells are used in research, or about the ways in which they are cultured and investigated, then this is probably not the book for you. However, this is a book about the impact science has on us all. This remarkable story allows Skloot to highlight the wider ethical implications for scientific research. Science touches on many, if not nearly every, aspect of modern life and the story of HeLa shows how science can have a very personal and deeply emotional impact.

Skloot had become fascinated by the story of the woman behind HeLa when in graduate school and her book reflects years of research; she was also able to contact and befriend many of Henrietta’s relatives, in particular Henrietta’s daughter Deborah. This allows the reader to really connect with the story as we learn about Henrietta’s family and how they have been affected by the worldwide fame of HeLa. I enjoyed learning the background of the HeLa cells and about some of the key scientists working on early cell culturing methods; however, it was also an enjoyable and often emotional story which encouraged me to keep on reading.

 A real strength of this book lies in the wonderful fusion between a touching real-life story and an eye-opening insight into scientific ethics and science communication. This book delves interestingly into the ethical debate concerning what consent should be given when tissues or blood samples are taken. It also examines science communication and how well scientists are able to convey information to the public. Added to this, the story of Henrietta and her family is moving and sometimes saddening, but ultimately uplifting and inspiring.

One thing worth noting is that a lot of the examples given in the book come from the practice of scientists in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Science has moved on and things have changed for the better, but at times I’m not sure this came across. Also, a lot of the criticism is given with the eyes of 21st century morality; we have to remember that the scientists who made decisions which now seem unethical did not have the luxury of hindsight that we do. I don’t wish to suggest that there are no remaining issues in science research, or ethical problems to iron out, but at times it felt that Skloot was giving a slightly biased view.

Nonetheless, any flaws that may exist did not detract from my enjoyment of the book. I have to say that I found ‘The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks’ engaging, interesting and persistently thought-provoking. The story of HeLa cells is one of great importance to those working with, or studying science – but also to anyone interested in any scientific discipline. I highly recommend the book as there is much for scientists and non-scientists alike to enjoy.

Dominant and Recessive Genes In Humans

Posted on by
5

As briefly referred to in the previous Genetics blog, for each of our genes we posess two ‘alleles’. One of these alleles in inherited from our father and one from our mother. There can be many different alleles for one gene and it can be completely up to chance, or perhaps luck, what we inherit from our parents. When speaking in general terms about dominant and recessive alleles, we tend to speak about genes as if for each of them there are two different alleles. This is not always, or often, the case, but it sometimes is and makes it much easier to explain this way.

For example, for a particular gene, say the ability to roll your tongue, there is a dominant and a recessive gene. We can call the dominant allele ‘R’ for being able to roll our tongue and the recessive allele ‘r’ for being unable to roll our tongue. Our parents could posess any combination of these alleles: AA, aa or Aa. Then, it is completely down to chance what we inherit from them.

One unexpected example is that the allele for dwarfism in humans is the dominant allele and the allele for normal growth is recessive. This means that if we inherited both of the different alleles for this gene we would show the dwarfism trait.

Below is a table of dominant and recessive traits shown in humans.

Dominant Trait in Humans

Recessive Trait in Humans

A blood type

O blood type

Abundant body hair

Little body hair

Astigmatism

Normal vision

B blood type

O blood type

Baldness (in male)

Not bald

Broad lips

Thin lips

Broad nose

Narrow nose

Dwarfism

Normal growth

Hazel or green eyes

Blue or gray eyes

High blood pressure

Normal blood pressure

Large eyes

Small eyes

Migraine

Normal

Mongolian Fold

No fold in eyes

Nearsightedness

Normal vision

Rh factor (+)

No factor (Rh -)

Second toe longest

First or big toe longest

Short stature

Tall stature

Six fingers

Five fingers normal

Webbed fingers

Normal fingers

Tone deafness

Normal tone hearing

White hair streak

Normal hair coloring

 

When we are speaking about the inheritance of alleles and the genetic make-up of a person with respect to one gene, we use one of two phrases. The first is homozygous, meaning that the two alleles an individual posesses for one gene are the same i.e. AA or aa. The second is heterozygous, meaning that the two alleles an individual posesses for one gene are different i.e. Aa.

By Robyn Bradbury

Research is meaningless if it’s not conducted fairly

Posted on by
Reply

A report on the sexualisation of young girls and how the government intends to prevent it has been hitting the Headlines of all the major newspapers in recent days. The new rules that the Coalition have announced today are separate from the report by Reg Bailey but coincide with its publication, also today. They include tougher restrictions on the 9pm watershed, certification for music videos and a ban on inappropriate clothes sold to children.

The report was commissioned by David Cameron to be conducted by Reg Bailey of the Mother’s Union, a Christian charity. The approach taken by Mr Cameron in this instance is a good example of how politicians can missuse evidence to support policy. I’m not taking issue with the content of the report – it is probably quite valid – or the Mother’s Union, but more the reasons and method of the report’s instigation.

The purpose of the Mother’s Union is to promote traditional family values; it is a lobby group with a clear and obvious agenda. Is David Cameron therefore right to commission them to do research on behalf of the government when it is clear what the outcome will be? In other words, is this not just manufacturing “evidence” in support of his policy?

And it has worked very well. Every newspaper article cites the reasons stated in the report on why new policies are needed. And quite rightly, each article also states that the research was arranged by Mr Cameron so the motives should be clear, but do the public see it? Do they care?

In my opinion, it is a waste of money and it is a PR stunt. If David Cameron wants to improve the situation for young Children would he not be better off commissioning fair independent research to identify the problems and suggest solutions based on evidence, rather than religious ideology? Last year the Home Office commissioned a review by an academic that reached the same conclusions as Mr Bailey and the year before that Ed Balls as Education Secretary commissioned a review, again by a trusted academic, which was slightly less alarmist but nonetheless recommended changes. So why do it again? Because it’s something new (by which I do not mean original) that will help with the media coverage.

Evidence-based policy is important, and research to back up the claims and positions of politicians is fundamental to democracy, it ensures transparency. For us to be able to trust research we must trust who does it and know why they are doing it and that it was conducted fairly; this is why published scientific papers come with a disclosure of conflicts of interest.

If any government wants to be trusted and respected they should avoid cheap tricks and follow the wealth of academic research conducted by universities and other institutions. Politics is often polarised and debates passionate, but that is all the more reason to commission dispassionate research to identify the facts from the sensationalism designed to scare. By all means consult think tanks and lobby groups, I believe they are there for a good reason (albeit a biased one), but to commission research in such a bias manner cheapens your policy and is an insult to the public’s intelligence.