![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
book ramblings
Feel free to scroll. It's 3:40am and I'm trying to finish this book for class. I have to write the 2 page paper tomorrow morning. The book in question is Next by Michael Crichton.
My initial impression of the book is a pile of rage. It paints a totally unflattering picture of the workings behind science, in particular biomedical research. It's full of politics and innocent patients getting exploited by big business and unethical behavior everywhere. Which, yes, realistically.. this is exactly what happens. We have looked at some of these cases in class.
The first case is of a man who, during the process of leukemia treatment, it was discovered that his cells produced a specific cytokine that... did stuff that was special. He was cured, but the doctor told me that they needed more samples, but did not disclose that the reason they wanted more samples, was for testing and eventual drug production (and therefore profit). The guy found out after the fact and sued. The court ruled that despite the lack of disclosure, that once the tissues were removed from his body, that it no longer belonged to him.
Actual case yes, but in the book... it is very much from the slant of.. let's make everyone pity this man as much as possible. I don't agree with the case, but I also don't agree with Crichton's method of presenting the facts.
There are descriptions of animal handling... which I know from personal experience... is the fastest way to get someone to say "omg the poor lab animals".
As a scientist, I am actually borderline offended by Crichton's treatment of the issues. I totally get that science, and especially the field of biomedical research, is one full of ethics problems and lawsuits and general douchebaggery. But Crichton clearly has an agenda with this book. And the average person reading this book is going to take all this at face value. And science has enough of a crap rep with the general public as it is. Stem-cells.. animal research.. genetic engineering.. even the issues of evolution, global climate change...
There is another scene presented with a scientist who suspects his wife is cheating and want a divorce. He then plots to have a gamut of genetic tests run on her DNA to try and show that she has genes that will predispose her to disease that will make her die soon.. thus making it likely that the courts would not grant custody of the children to her.. and to make her life miserable. When presented with the idea that he would have to let the same tests be run on himself.. he says it's ok.. because he is "good at faking data". HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT?!
Maybe it's just the scientist in me talking, but I feel like someone writing a book like this has a responsibility to present everything. Obviously this is not what happens. ever. But it makes me angry.
That being said, I just read an interesting case in the book just now. There is a family with 2 kids. Father dies. Daughter has always never believed that the man was her father. She calls the funeral home and asks for some tissue samples, as a family member. Paternity test comes back negative, meaning the mother cheated... and is now being accused of infidelity. Mother sues the funeral home for releasing the tissue. even though the funeral home couldn't have had an idea.
I'm thinking I'll use that last case as my paper writing fodder.
Apparently I have a lot of feelings. Back to reading
My initial impression of the book is a pile of rage. It paints a totally unflattering picture of the workings behind science, in particular biomedical research. It's full of politics and innocent patients getting exploited by big business and unethical behavior everywhere. Which, yes, realistically.. this is exactly what happens. We have looked at some of these cases in class.
The first case is of a man who, during the process of leukemia treatment, it was discovered that his cells produced a specific cytokine that... did stuff that was special. He was cured, but the doctor told me that they needed more samples, but did not disclose that the reason they wanted more samples, was for testing and eventual drug production (and therefore profit). The guy found out after the fact and sued. The court ruled that despite the lack of disclosure, that once the tissues were removed from his body, that it no longer belonged to him.
Actual case yes, but in the book... it is very much from the slant of.. let's make everyone pity this man as much as possible. I don't agree with the case, but I also don't agree with Crichton's method of presenting the facts.
There are descriptions of animal handling... which I know from personal experience... is the fastest way to get someone to say "omg the poor lab animals".
As a scientist, I am actually borderline offended by Crichton's treatment of the issues. I totally get that science, and especially the field of biomedical research, is one full of ethics problems and lawsuits and general douchebaggery. But Crichton clearly has an agenda with this book. And the average person reading this book is going to take all this at face value. And science has enough of a crap rep with the general public as it is. Stem-cells.. animal research.. genetic engineering.. even the issues of evolution, global climate change...
There is another scene presented with a scientist who suspects his wife is cheating and want a divorce. He then plots to have a gamut of genetic tests run on her DNA to try and show that she has genes that will predispose her to disease that will make her die soon.. thus making it likely that the courts would not grant custody of the children to her.. and to make her life miserable. When presented with the idea that he would have to let the same tests be run on himself.. he says it's ok.. because he is "good at faking data". HOW FUCKED UP IS THAT?!
Maybe it's just the scientist in me talking, but I feel like someone writing a book like this has a responsibility to present everything. Obviously this is not what happens. ever. But it makes me angry.
That being said, I just read an interesting case in the book just now. There is a family with 2 kids. Father dies. Daughter has always never believed that the man was her father. She calls the funeral home and asks for some tissue samples, as a family member. Paternity test comes back negative, meaning the mother cheated... and is now being accused of infidelity. Mother sues the funeral home for releasing the tissue. even though the funeral home couldn't have had an idea.
I'm thinking I'll use that last case as my paper writing fodder.
Apparently I have a lot of feelings. Back to reading
no subject
no subject
Yes I would be angrier if it were supposed to be just about case studies, but as it stands, the line is fuzzy.
no subject