letters to the editor
16 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | JANUARY 2014 | VOL. 57 | NO. 1
“The Lacks family is honored to be part
of an important agreement that we be-
lieve will be beneficial to everyone.”
The oncologists treating Lacks
should indeed have asked her whether
they could reuse her cells for research.
But monetary payment in such cases
could lead toward a market in human
body parts. Your body is “yours” in
many senses of the word, but not in
the sense that you may sell it. This is a
consequence of the 13th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution and other anti-
slavery laws around the world.
The Michaels further said, “Consid-
er the story of Henrietta Lacks, whom
scientists named ‘HeLa.’” In my expe-
rience, even this is inaccurate. I have
heard many scientists say they work
with “HeLa cells,” as well as with BL321
cells and CHO DG44 cells not of human
origin. When I have heard them speak
of Henrietta Lacks, they have called her
by her full name.
The Michaels rightly said, “There is
a stark asymmetry between those who
use wearables and those who do not. …
Maker or hacker communities … create
personalized devices … [which] often
[are] commercialized for mass con-
sumption.” I suspect they were trying
to reinforce this point by saying if “sci-
entists” disrespected Henrietta Lacks,
then perhaps engineers devising wear-
able devices today would likewise be
disrespectful of bystanders in the field
of view.
Such lazy generalizations about sci-
entists can hardly help readers like me
address the ethical challenges we face.
Chris Morris, Chester, U.K.
Planned [Software] Immortality
I could not disagree more with Mar-
shall Van Alstyne’s column paean to
mortality “Why Not Immortality?”
(Nov. 2013) because, unlike the living
creatures and appliances he modeled,
there is no aspect of software that can-
not be designed to evolve. Software be-
comes obsolete and must be replaced
only if its designers do not design for
immortality. Consider our cities. Al-
I
N HIS EDITOR’S LETTER “The End
of The American Network” (Nov.
2013), Moshe Y. Vardi made
this startling statement: “Thus,
in spite of its being a globally
distributed system, the Internet is ul-
timately controlled by the U.S. govern-
ment. This enables the U.S. government
to conduct Internet surveillance opera-
tions that would have been impossible
without this degree of control.” This is
untrue on several levels: First, so-called
U.S. control of the Internet is limited to
approval of root-zone changes of the Do-
main Name System, though the U.S. has
never exercised that authority against
any top-level delegation or re-delega-
tion proposed by the Internet Corpora-
tion for Assigned Names and Numbers
(http://www.icann.org), the not-for-
profit organization that oversees the
Internet’s naming and numbering sys-
tem. In addition, root-zone servers exist
outside the U.S., and any heavy-handed
attempt by the U.S. government to exer-
cise unwarranted control over the con-
tents of the zone would be international
political suicide and likely cause a near
immediate takeover by operators in oth-
er countries. Second, this administra-
tive function has nothing to do with the
routing of information on the Internet
and does not provide any agency of the
U.S. government any advantage for sur-
veillance of Internet traffic.
Although the topology of the early
Internet was such that much of the
world’s traffic flowed through the U.S.,
it was a historical artifact of the Inter-
net’s early development. More recent-
ly, the pattern changed radically, with
Internet topology evolving into a more
comprehensive global mesh structure.
Vardi’s repetition of spurious and
incorrect claims, often made for po-
litical reasons by other countries,
gives credence to ignorance while il-
lustrating the extent to which a knee-
jerk reaction generated by Edward
Snowden’s recent disclosures con-
cerning the National Security Agency’s
surveillance of personal communica-
tions worldwide has been unthinking-
ly adopted by otherwise presumably
sensible individuals. A retraction of
Vardi’s statement is essential to con-
firm ACM is a professional organiza-
tion, not a thoughtless echo chamber
for uninformed sentiment.
George Sadowsky, Woodstock, VT
(The author is a member of the ICANN
Board of Directors)
Author’s Response:
I am not an Internet expert and
am happy to be educated by Internet
insiders like Sadowsky. But the revelations
that have poured out for the past many
months resulted in a massive loss
of public trust in insiders. It behooves
Internet insiders like Sadowsky to
speak up and explain precisely what role
the U.S. government plays in Internet
governance and what has enabled the
massive Internet surveillance operations
run by the National Security Agency.
Only more transparency, rather than
vehement denials, may begin the process
of rebuilding the public’s trust in insiders.
Moshe Y. Vardi, Editor-in-Chief
Just the Facts… for Ethics Sake
Katina Michael’s and MG Michael’s
“Computer Ethics” column “No Limits
to Watching?” (Nov. 2013) was marred
by a careless discussion of HeLa, an im-
mortal line of human-derived cells that
is today an important tool for biomedi-
cal research since being derived from
a sample of cervical cancer cells taken
from Henrietta Lacks, a patient at
Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore,
in 1951.
The Michaels said Henrietta
Lacks’s “…cells were ‘taken without
her knowledge.’” In fact, she had a
biopsy, like millions of other cancer
patients. They further said, “Until
this year... HeLa cells were ‘bought
and sold...’ without compensation.”
The understanding agreed in August
between the National Institutes of
Health and Lacks’s family was, in fact,
about access to genomic data, not
compensation. Lacks’s granddaughter
Jeri Lacks Whye even said to the NIH:
U.S. Does Not Control the Internet
DOI:10.1145/2541883.2541886