1. Should tissue be removed from a patient without his or her consent for research?

2. How was the HeLa cell line cultured?

3. What virus infected Henrietta Lacks and may have caused her cervical cancer? What cellular process is affected by this virus?

4. Was there bias in the way Henrietta Lacks was treated at Johns Hopkins?

5. Put the use of HeLa cells on trial. Debate what is more important: an individual’s rights to his/her own body tissues or the medical knowledge gained by studying a patient’s tissues?

6. Should Henrietta Lacks’ family be compensated for the discoveries made using her cells?

7. Do companies or universities have the right to patent discoveries made using a patient’s tissues or genes without consulting the patient?

8. What other legal and ethical questions are raised by this book?

2. It was cultured by the roller tube technique. In which the cells are lined/immobilized to the walls of the tube by serum or another medium and rotated(as in water bath) for adequate and uniform aeration.

3. The human papillomavirus 18 (HPV-18) that was later found to cause the strain of the cervical cancer she had. These viruses have two proteins E6 and E7 that turn off some of the tumor suppressors like pb53 and Rb and cause the cell lining to grow too much and cause changes in the cells that may bring cancer in some cases.

4. No. She received the standard treatment of the cervical cancer at that time, being stiched invasively with radium pouches, since the hospital was one of the few that treated black people.

5. Personally, both are important. But clearly for the betterment of the human race and people yet unborn, the medical knowledge that'll be obtained from stufying the cells and their overall benefits is more important. I completely disagree with the way the HeLa cells were obtained for I believe consent is a must since the tissues were hers to begin with and not the hospital's property. It's crucial for the patient to be notified of the pros and cons of giving the tissues and if manners of compensations can be discussed. Although malicious intents aren't wide but they're still there and it can be seen as invasion of personal privacy to some patients as well as relatives of the deceased.

6. Compensation to the Lacks family must be on the Lacks family terms. Because obviously all the discoveries made were due to the research done by the hospital still the tissues were taken without consent therefore if the Lacks family want to be compensated they must be as they want. Obviously, family can't be paid for and no amount of money that the institutions will deem fit would ever be enough unless the family decides on the amount themselves.

7. No. If the patient is alive credit must be given to the patient and the patient clearly informed on the patenting licenses and rights. And if the patient is dead then the family must be notified as well on the patenting licenses and rights. And the patenting decisions must be made only after the approval has been given by the owner of the tissues or the next of kin.

8. > Invasion of privacy was raised especially on Henrietta as well as her family.

> Ownership rights especially on th institutions that sold and benefited from the cells as well as the research and articles published without the family's knowledge.

> Right on one's body was raised on the legalization behind tissues, genes, body fluids. Things that weren't on the table for discussion are now put on the light.

This is what I think. All the best.