Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of technological advancement for our society
Advantages and disadvantages of technological advancement for our society
Technological advancement advantages and disadvantages
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Technology is supposed to be seen as such an advancement and great accomplishment. What others may not always know is sometimes it isn’t all fun and games, it could be dangerous. As seen when we created the atomic bomb and guns, their only purpose is to destroy and cause pain to others. Although they are not always in use they are a constant threat to our well being. We need to take into consideration the positives and the negatives of the technology we create now in present day. Many people change their position on this overarching question: What responsibility do people have when developing new technology? In the texts “Frankenstein” by Mary Shelley, “the Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot, and “De-Extinction” answers the questions that it may impose. Each of these texts share one same belief: Society holds throughout the article she talks about how the HeLa helped created cures for various diseases, and how groundbreaking they are. But when diving further into her research she finds out that there was a face behind it all: Henrietta Lacks. When looking into it she discovers that Henrietta's family was never informed that her cells were used for scientific discoveries in this caused much hardship for her family. As seen when Rebecca states “ jet said the family was angry- angry that Henrietta's cells were being sold for twenty-five dollars of vial and angry that articles had been published about the cells without their knowledge (23)” In this quote it is seen that when not taking into consideration the effects that new technology, it can cause emotional pain. As seen when Henrietta's family wasn't informed of the use of her cells and publish articles on the subject. Although no one was physically hurt in this, being emotionally hurt can be just as
Henrietta’s name is associated with HeLa cells after a doctor took her cells without her knowing (the name derives from the first two letters of her first and last names). It is told that George Gey, a cancer researcher at Hopkins was longing to study cancer cells however, the method failed because the cells were studied outside of the body and died. But Henrietta’s cells did not die. In fact they continued to replicate making what we now know as the HeLa cell. The sample of Henrietta’s malignant tumor was offered to researchers who saw the cells continue to multiply in culture, and they still continue to grow up to this day. Scientists remain stumped why the HeLa cells survived whereas others didn't. It has been proposed that the immortality of her cells is due to the enzyme telomerase (Reveron, 2011). Telomerase pre...
The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks is a book about the women behind the scientific revolution of using actual cancer cells to perform cancer research. Henrietta Lacks was an African American woman who was barely educated and worked as a tobacco farmer. At the age of thirty she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. In Lacks’ time being uneducated, African American, and a woman was not a great mix. They were often undermined and taken advantage of. When Lacks started to become very ill she went to the nearest hospital that would accept black patients. There the doctor, George Gey, misdiagnosed her illness and took a tissue sample without her consent. After suffering through her illness and trying to keep up with her five children Henrietta died
Most people live in capitalist societies where money matters a lot. Essentially, ownership is also of significance since it decides to whom the money goes. In present days, human tissues matter in the scientific field. Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, shows how Henrietta Lacks’s cells have been used well, and at the same time, how they have been a hot potato in science because of the problem of the ownership. This engages readers to try to answer the question, “Should legal ownership have to be given to people?” For that answer, yes. People should be given the rights to ownership over their tissues for patients to decide if they are willing to donate their tissues or not. Reasons will be explained as follows.
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks: A Doctoring Lens Rebecca Skloot begins The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks with a quote from Elie Wiesel: Instead, we must see in every person a universe with its own secrets, With its own treasures, with its own sources of anguish, And with some measure of triumph. This quote centers Henrietta Lacks’ story around the same questions that have driven the Doctoring course: What does it mean to care for others? And how do we ensure that we care for our patients first as people, rather than as a disease? In many ways, Henrietta Lacks’ story is a textbook case in how not to be a good physician.
Imagine having a part of your body taken from you without your permission, and then having those cells that are a part of your body grow and are being processed in labs around the world and then ultimately being used for the highest of research. That is what happens to Henrietta Lacks. In the book, The Immoral Life of Henrietta Lacks, we see Henrietta Lacks and her families story unravel, the numerous hardships that they faced, and the shocking revelation that their relative cells were being used for research without her consent and theirs.
Henrietta’s cells were being inaugurated with space travel, infused into rat cells, and even being used to make infertile hens fertile again. However, these are only a few of the many accomplishments that Henrietta’s immortal cells made possible: “The National Cancer Institute was using various cells, including HeLa, to screen more than thirty thousand chemicals and plant extracts, which would yield several of today’s most widely used and effective chemotherapy drugs, including Vincristine and Taxol,”(pg.139). This example of logos from the text again shows just how important these Henrietta’s cells were to the future developments in
...through society and enacting that awareness as a vehicle for change we are left to repeat these same injustices. Henrietta's cells gave society the ability to cure diseases, fight cancer, vaccinate children, and by leaps and bounds further our knowledge of biology at large. At what price does this progress come and who reaps these benefits? Henrietta's children do not have access to the advancements their mother's body is responsible for and nor do countless other individuals on this planet. Where is the line drawn? The extraction of HeLa cells without consent from Henrietta did not mark the exploitative end or the cells would have remained a communal property within the science community. The story of Henrietta and her cells is one small act of a greater play that showcases the exploitative nature of capitalism and the forlorn society it perpetuates indefinitely.
Now a days this kind of behavior would never happen! And if it did you would be able to press charges and the doctor would get arrested and put away for a long time. While also loosing his or her career. The publics interpretation would have been way different if Henrietta Lacks By Rebecca Skloot would have been published in 1951 versus being published in
Throughout the course of reading, the reader becomes very aware of the writer’s intentions. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the author, Rebecca Skloot, opens with a quote that in turn, gives leading questions to the reader. Questions that we continue to ask ourselves throughout the entirety of reading. The scientific community and the media constantly treated the Lacks family as abstractions, but how? Was it intentional or coincidental? Do their actions have consequences? Does the community or media ever suffer as much as the family did?
While doctors and scientists were making millions of dollars through HeLa research, Henrietta’s family was living in poverty. Lawrence Lacks, Henrietta’s firstborn child, says, “Hopkins say they gave them cells away, but they made millions! It’s not fair! She’s the most important person in the world and her family living in poverty. If our mother so important to science, why can’t we get health insurance?” (pg.168). Someone who disagrees with this standpoint may argue that scientists had been trying for years to develop the perfect culture medium and had a much more hands on experience with the cells (pg.35), therefore, they should be receiving the earnings from any outcomes the HeLa cells may produce. While the scientists were in fact the brains behind the scientific advances, the family should be acknowledged on behalf of Henrietta Lacks. These successes in science would not have been possible without the origin of the cells: Henrietta Lacks. For some of the family, the primary focus was not even the profit. “Since they gone ahead and taken her cells and they been so important for science, Deborah thought, least they can do is give her credit for it.” (pg. 197). Here, Deborah Lacks, Henrietta’s fourth born child, makes it clear that her primary concern is getting her mother the recognition that she deserves for her
...d syndromes, such as Down and Turner Syndrome. Along with the discovery of having 46 chromosomes, scientists and researchers were able to map genes tracing back diseases. The production of the cells to test all these different diseases increased as more cell factories were built and cells could be shipped safely. This led to a multi-million industry, but also led to a loss of money along the way when HeLa cells infected many crucial experiments. HeLa led to many patient consent rules and regulations, including her family. These regulations included the government coming up with a commission and the Common Rule. Nowadays, when patients are given consent forms, every step is explicitly stated so that there is no such confusion or harm. All in all, Henrietta Lacks has contributed and made significant changes to the scientific, ethical, and political aspects of society.
...e but that she is also sad and very lonely. Nevertheless, the scene at the end of the movie, showing Rebecca’s death, was inevitable that left me feeling empty, and empathetic towards Rebecca. However, from a clinical view, I am a bit insulted in how the media depicted her disorder as being inhumane and monstrous. On the same note, it disappointed me to see that many viewers would get a misguided impression of the people who suffer from bipolar disorder.
There are a few components that go along with technology. There are a lot of pros to technology, but what else is it good for? Many people think that technology is bad, but at this time of life, the good always outweighs the bad.
There is no doubt that the accomplishments made through technology are astonishing. Technology has made amazing impacts on everything from science in space to medical science to the devices we use every day that make our lives easier. People are living longer and better than ever before, but we can’t forget how to live without it. “Just because technology is there and makes something easier doesn’t mean we should rely on it so much that we can’t think for ourselves,” (Levinson).
Technology can be conveyed as a necessary evil in our life today. It’s considered necessary because it can save lives, and make them easier. Yet it’s considered evil because it can destroy lives on a physical and mental aspect. The true question is does the good outway the bad? ‘Technology is a word used to collectively describe or portray the advancements, abilities, creations, undertaking, views, and knowledge of the human-kind”(https://www.academia.edu/346486/Technological_Advancements_and_Its_Impact_on_Humanity). Therefore it basically means that it progresses the human race. It connects us, conserves energy and produces goods, and it saves lives. How could it not be a good thing?