\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Name:} Catherine Caracciolo
\bigskip
\noindent
Content and Structure -- The paper
\bigskip
\item{1.}  Has a clearly stated topic or question that it will address -- 10 
\item{2.}  Does address the topic or question -- 5
\item{3.}  Has a clearly articulated and logical structure:
\medskip
\itemitem{a.}  First paragraph lays out the topic or question -- 10 
\itemitem{b.}  Later paragraphs have topic sentences and clearly identifiable main ideas -- 10
\itemitem{c.}  Transitions between paragraphs are logical -- 10
\medskip
\item{4.}  Accurately presents facts and viewpoints of sources -- 8 
\item{5.}  Provides sufficient textual evidence to support the argument -- 10
\item{6.}  Is concise, clear, and not too repetitive -- 10
\item{7.}  Has a clearly identifiable conclusion -- 10
\item{8.}  Has a convincing argument that draws together the evidence presented -- 10 
\bigskip
\noindent
Total:  93 (A-)
\bigskip
\noindent
Style and English Usage -- The paper
\bigskip
\item{1.} Is clear, direct, and appropriate in tone -- 20 
\item{2.} Is free of misspellings -- 9
\item{3.} Is free of grammatical mistakes -- 10 
\item{4.} Avoids incomplete sentences -- 10
\item{5.} Avoids run-on or overly complicated sentences -- 10
\item{6.}  Uses correct punctuation -- 10
\item{7.} Is free of jargon, cliches, and misused words -- 8 
\item{8.} Cites quotations and/or references correctly -- 10
\bigskip
\noindent
Total: 97 (A)
\bigskip
\noindent
{\it Comments:}  Catherine, even though I disagree pretty strongly 
with many of your conclusions, I think this is a much better piece 
of writing than your first essay.  You have laid out and forcefully 
defended a possible criticism of Skloot's book.  

The main thing I think you are not appreciating is the way the elements 
of the book that you object to (the history of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 
the discussion of oral traditions of ``Night Doctors,'' and the like)
are there to provide a {\it context} for the fear and 
mistrust that many African-Americans (including to some extent
Henrietta herself, and even more strongly some in Henrietta's
family) have for the medical profession.  

You say (I think) that those historical facts don't have anything to do 
with Henrietta Lacks or HeLa.  But that, in a way, is part of Skloot's 
point -- medical researchers have tended to put their work ahead of the 
interests of the patients who supply the ``raw material'' -- the cells 
in this case.  And that attitude also contributes in a way to the abuses 
(when they happen -- fortunately rarely)
because of  the way it lets the scientists distance themselves from
the human beings whose tissues they are working with.
Think of Mary Kubiczek's statement that up until she
saw Henrietta's body during the autopsy, she had never
made the connection that the HeLa cells were coming from
an actual person.  

I also think you are giving some of the doctors a "free pass" by
uncritically accepting some of their statements at face value
rather than asking whether those statements might be a bit 
self-serving.  I'm thinking mainly here of Howard Jones's defence
of the treatment Henrietta received.  (Yes, I agree,  
Skloot's argument there would be stronger if she gave more
direct evidence of the studies she is citing -- did you look 
at the notes at the end, though?)   If one was inclined
to be cynical, one might also see the free treatment of 
Henrietta's deviated septum as less than a selfless act
of charity.  It might also have been a great chance for 
doctors in training to get some practice.  Is that automatically
bad?  Of course not, but it's also not as clear-cut as you 
are implying.
 
Finally, whether or not using tissue from a patient without
their consent is (or was) legal, can't (and shouldn't) we
ask another question?  Namely, shouldn't we ask whether it
is {\it right, or ethical} to do that?  You seem to assume that
the answer is definitely yes if it advances science (sorry
if I am misrepresenting you viewpoint).  But isn't this something
reasonable people might disagree about? 

\bye
