Question 17

Rebecca Skloot disapproves of the way the science community treated Lacks and her family.

Rebecca Skloot conveys a critical view of the ethical implications surrounding the treatment of Henrietta Lacks and her family's lack of acknowledgement and compensation for the use of her cells in scientific research.

A) thinks that people should profit when their tissue donations prove to be useful.

This option is incorrect as Skloot's narrative emphasizes the exploitation of Lacks and the lack of consent and profit-sharing for her family, suggesting she does not endorse profiting from tissue donations without proper ethical considerations.

B) disapproves of the way the science community treated Lacks and her family.

This option is correct as Skloot highlights the injustices faced by Lacks and her family, including their lack of knowledge about the use of her cells and the absence of consent, illustrating her disapproval of the scientific community's actions.

C) approves of George Gey's decisions but not of other researchers' decisions.

This option is incorrect because Skloot critiques the overall treatment of Lacks, including Gey's initial actions, which, while scientifically significant, lacked ethical consideration for Lacks and her family, indicating she does not fully approve of his decisions.

D) believes HeLa's value to science outweighs Henrietta's individual rights.

This option is incorrect as Skloot advocates for a balanced view that acknowledges the importance of HeLa cells while also emphasizing the need for ethical treatment of individuals, particularly in Lacks's case, thus rejecting the notion that scientific value supersedes individual rights.

Conclusion

The correct answer, B, reflects Skloot's focus on the ethical implications of Lacks's story, showcasing her disapproval of the exploitation that occurred. The other options fail as they either misinterpret Skloot’s stance on profit and consent or overlook the core ethical issues highlighted in her work. Skloot's narrative serves as a powerful critique of the medical research community's treatment of marginalized individuals.